Bozella v. The County of Dutchess et al
| Dewey R Bozella |
| The County of Dutchess, The City of Poughkeepsie, William J O'Neill and Robert J DeMattio |
| 7:2010cv04917 |
| June 24, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| White Plains Office |
| Dutchess |
| Cathy Seibel |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
102
DECISION AND ORDER: A. 135 Emails Between Attorney Steiman and Wilmer Hare Attorney Steiman represented the plaintiff Bozella in the criminal case related to this civil action. The Wilmer Hale firm represents plaintiff in the civil action here in. As pointed out by plaintiff, communications between counsel who share the same client would be covered by the attorney client privilege. In re Copper Mkt. Antitrust Litig., 200 F.R.D. 213, 219 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). In any event, the Court also agrees that any communications between Steiman and the Wilmer Hale firm concerning this matter would clearly constitute communications with a third party agent to assist in providing legal advise to the client. United States v. Koval, 296 F.2d 918, 922 (2d Cir 1961); Gucci, 271 F.R.D. at 70-71. As such, the communications would be privileged. There is nothing to show on this record that attorney Steiman did not continue to have an attorney client relationship with Bozella. Moreove r, the email would also be protected pursuant to the work product privilege. The emails between Steiman and the Wilmer Hare firm prior to the filing of the civil action herein would have been prepared "because of the prospect of litigation." ; United States v. Adlman at 1202. Defendants have not demonstrated a substantial need for the materials. In fact, attorney Steiman is available to be deposed in this matter. As such, plaintiff's and attorney Steiman's objections to produci ng the subject emails on the grounds of attorney client privilege and attorney work product are sustained. The Court does not see any need for an in camera review of the emails given the privileges claimed and the challenges advanced by defendants. B . 97 Emails Between Attorney Steinberg and Attorney Steiman Attorneys Steinberg and Steiman were law partners who served as Bozella's counsel in the criminal mailer. The privileges set forth above would apply for the same reasons. C. 2 Emails From Michael Benvie to Attorney Steiman Communications between Benvie, an investigator with the Wilmer Hale firm, and attorney Steiman concerning the case herein would also be privileged as set forth above. See Koval, Gucci. D. 3 Letters From Bozella to Attorney Steiman The Court directs that the 3 letters be provided to chambers for in camera review. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge George A. Yanthis on 10/15/2012) (lnl)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
