United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
FIREFIGHTERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, ET AL.
CITCO GROUP LIMITED, ET AL.
NOTICE AND ORDER
WILDER-DOOMES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
the court are: (1) The Louisiana Funds' Motion to
Continue Submission Date on Motion to Compel Privileged
Documents or Alternative Motion to Compel Privileged
Documents (“Plaintiffs' Motion to
Compel”); and (2) Citco's Motion to Compel
Production of Documents Withheld Pursuant to Plaintiffs'
Privilege Log (“Defendants' Motion to
Compel”). Both motions challenge the sufficiency of
the privilege logs and seek to compel production of documents
for which each party has claimed privilege. Both motions were
discussed during the December 12, 2017 status conference and
taken under advisement. Based on further review, the
undersigned finds that additional information is necessary to
rule on the two Motions to Compel.
Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel, Defendants have previously
submitted a revised Exhibit 1 “describing privileged
communications sent by Citco employees to in-house
counsel….” However, it does not appear that
Exhibit 1 distinguishes between documents (1) that were sent
to in-house counsel or that instead (2) on which in-house
counsel was only carbon copied. Additionally, although some
of the individuals named on Defendants' privilege log
have been previously identified, the undersigned's review
would be assisted by the provision of a chart setting out the
position and/or function of each individual named on the
Defendants' privilege log.
Defendants' Motion to Compel, the entries still at issue
reference “Mourant” or “Mouvant,
” “MTBA, ” and
“UCBI.” Other entries improperly list the author
as “LA Funds” or “NOFF employee.”
See, XL Specialty Ins. Co. v. Bollinger
Shipyards, Inc., Civil Action No. 12-2071, 2014 WL
295053, ay * 6 (E.D. La. Jan. 27, 2014) (ordering defendant
to either produce documents or provide a supplemental log as
to 12 entries that identified only entities in the
“to” and “from” column); Chemtech
Royalty Associates, L.P. v. U.S., Civil Action Nos.
05-944, 06-258, 07-405, 2009 WL 854358, at * 5 (M.D. La.
March 30, 2009) (finding privilege log that, inter
alia, listed the author of certain documents as
“‘Dow Chemical Company, ' which is an entity
and not an individual” was insufficient and requiring
plaintiff to provide a revised privilege log).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, on or before
Friday, December 29, 2017, the Citco Defendants shall submit:
(1) a revised Exhibit 1 that distinguishes between documents
which were sent to in-house counsel or instead on which
in-house counsel was only carbon copied; and (2) a chart
setting out the position and/or function of each individual
named in the Defendants' privilege log.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that, on or before Friday,
December 29, 2017, Plaintiffs shall submit a revised Exhibit
A that explains all acronyms used therein (including
“MTBA” and “UCBI”) as well as the
role of “Mourant”/“Mouvant” and which
revises, if possible, entries currently naming “LA
Funds” or “NOFF employee” as author.
 R. Doc. 481.
 R. Doc. 483.
 See, R. Doc. 506.
 R. Docs. 499-2 & 499-3.
 Based on the undersigned's review
of the revised log entries, R. Docs. 499-3 through 499-10, it
appears that certain entries appear on multiple exhibits
(i.e., there is some overlap between entries listed
on Exhibits 1 through 4(a)-(e)). The undersigned's
request herein is for a chart setting out the identity and
position and/or function of any individual listed on Exhibits
1 through 4(a)-(e) in the “from, ” “to,
” or “CC” column.
 One of the log entries states that
this is a “third party lawfirm.” R. Doc. 507,
Exhibit A. In opposition to Defendants' Motion to Compel,
Plaintiffs submitted a list of attorneys and law firms that
performed work for Plaintiffs. R. Doc. 496, pp. 5-6.
“Mourant” and/or “Mouvant” is not
included on that list and therefore it is unclear ...