Stanalajczo v. Perry ( 2024 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN MARK STANALAJCZO, DDS, Plaintiff, Case No. 23-cv-11527 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman v BRANDONN PERRY, et al., Defendants. / Dennis B. Dubuc (P67316) Timothy H. Howlett (P24030) ESSEX PARK LAW OFFICE, P.C. Angelina R. Delmastro (P81712) Attorney for Plaintiff DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC 12618 10 Mile Road Attorneys for Defendants South Lyon, MI 48178 500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 4000 (248) 486-5508 Detroit, MI 48226 lawplus@sbcglobal.net (313) 223-3500 thowlett@dickinsonwright.com adelmastro@dickinsonwright.com Frank J. Lawrence (DC #1048420) LAW OFFICE OF FRANK LAWRENCE Co-Counsel for Plaintiff 941 Westview Road Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 (248) 722-5508 flawrence1@hotmail.com / ORDER CONCERNING DEFENDANTS’ PRIVILEGE DESIGNATIONS In this action, Defendants have asserted that certain documents are covered by the attorney-client privilege and/or the work-product privilege. Defendants have identified those documents on an Amended Privilege Log and have withheld those documents from discovery productions. Plaintiff has raised a challenge to Defendants’ assertions of privilege, and the parties have jointly asked the Court to review the allegedly-privileged documents in camera in order to determine whether to sustain the assertions of privilege. The Court has conducted the in camera review. The Court’s rulings on the privilege designations are reflected in the “Ruling” column of the Amended Privilege Log reproduced below. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Matthew F. Leitman MATTHEW F. LEITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: March 21, 2024 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on March 21, 2024, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail. s/Holly A. Ryan Case Manager (313) 234-5126 Case 2:23-cv-11527-MFL-EAS ECF No. 26, PageID.372 Filed 03/21/24 Page 3 of 6 COURT’S RULING WITH RESPECT TO DEFENDANTS’ AMENDED PRIVILEGE LOG DOCUMENT TYPE AUTHOR RECIPIENT PRIVILEGE DEFENDANTS’ Ruling DATE ASSERTED BY DESCRIPTION DEFENDANTS 10/20/22 Email Christiane Jacques Nor Attorney-Client Email discusses attached The assertion of Squarize cc: Jan Hu Privilege email from Gloria Hage privilege is Lynn to Christiane Squarize, SUSTAINED. Johnson cc: Lynn Johnson, Kimberly Andrus and Sascha Matish, and email from Christiane Squarize to Gloria Hage providing legal advice. 08/22/22 Email Chain of emails Copies to Attorney-Client Provision of legal advice. The assertion of between Lynn Kimberly Privilege privilege is Johnson and Andrus, Jan SUSTAINED. Gloria Hage Hu, Sascha Matish, Jacques Nor 09/26/22 Email Chain of emails Copies to Attorney-Client Provision of legal advice. The assertion of among Lynn Kimberly Privilege privilege is Johnson, Gloria Andrus, SUSTAINED. Hage and Jan Hu Christiane Squarize and Jacques Nor -3- Case 2:23-cv-11527-MFL-EAS ECF No. 26, PageID.373 Filed 03/21/24 Page 4 of 6 DOCUMENT TYPE AUTHOR RECIPIENT PRIVILEGE DEFENDANTS’ Ruling DATE ASSERTED BY DESCRIPTION DEFENDANTS 11/01/22 Email Chain of emails Copy to Attorney-Client Provision of legal advice. The assertion of among Lynn Kimberly Privilege privilege is Johnson, Jacques Andrus SUSTAINED. Nor, Christiane Squarize, Jan Hu and Gloria Hage 08/05/22 Email Lynn Johnson Jan Hu, Attorney-Client Discussing legal advice The assertion of Jacques Nor, Privilege from Gloria Hage. privilege is Romesh OVERRULED with the Nalliah exception of the third cc: Christiane paragraph of the first Squarize page of the document the begins with the name “Dubuc” and ends with the term “OGC.” That paragraph may be redacted from the production. 09/27/22 Email Lynn Johnson Erika Roberts Attorney-Client Discussion of legal The assertion of cc: Jan Hu, Privilege advice from Office of privilege is This email was Jacques Nor, General Counsel SUSTAINED. The produced in Christiane regarding October production of this email redacted form on 01/11/24, bates- Squarize Executive Committee in redacted form is stamped #00702 meeting. sufficient. -4- Case 2:23-cv-11527-MFL-EAS ECF No. 26, PageID.374 Filed 03/21/24 Page 5 of 6 DOCUMENT TYPE AUTHOR RECIPIENT PRIVILEGE DEFENDANTS’ Ruling DATE ASSERTED BY DESCRIPTION DEFENDANTS 07/18/22 Email Lynn Johnson Jacques Nor, Attorney-Client Paragraphs have been The assertion of Jan Hu Privilege redacted because they privilege is reflect legal advice from SUSTAINED. The Office of General production of these Counsel. Bates-stamped emails in redacted form #00277 through #00283. is sufficient. 07/18/22 Email Ashley Several Attorney-Client Discussing legal advice Defendants shall submit Stojkovic, on Recipients Privilege and regarding litigation hold a memorandum of law behalf of Patty Work-Product and identification of explaining why this Petrowski Privilege potential witnesses. litigation hold memo falls under Attorney- Client Privilege and Work-Product Privilege. See Bagley v. Yale University, 318 F.R.D. 234 (D. Conn. 2016) and United Illuminating Co. v. Whiting-Turner Contracting Co. et al., 2020 WL 8611045 (Oct. 30, D. Conn. 2020). -5- Case 2:23-cv-11527-MFL-EAS ECF No. 26, PageID.375 Filed 03/21/24 Page 6 of 6 DOCUMENT TYPE AUTHOR RECIPIENT PRIVILEGE DEFENDANTS’ Ruling DATE ASSERTED BY DESCRIPTION DEFENDANTS 07/04/23 Email Brandonn Perry Mary Jo Attorney-Client Paragraphs have been Defendants have not Gray Privilege redacted from bates- provided unredacted stamped documents copy and shall submit #00767 through #00771. such a copy to the Court Paragraphs have been for further review. redacted because they contain communications from the Office of General Counsel. 01/24/24 Letter Jeffrey S. Chatas Brandonn Attorney-Client The letter contains The assertion of Letter re Perry and Privilege privileged information. privilege is Indemnification other The defendants have OVERRULED. The recipient provided a copy of the document shall be defendants SPG and a copy of the produced. relevant insurance language. #00868 thru #00881 -6-