Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Firefighters' Retirement System v. Citco Group Ltd.

United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana

December 20, 2017

FIREFIGHTERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, ET AL.
v.
CITCO GROUP LIMITED, ET AL.

          NOTICE AND ORDER

          ERIN WILDER-DOOMES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Before 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”);[1] and (2) Citco's Motion to Compel Production of Documents Withheld Pursuant to Plaintiffs' Privilege Log (“Defendants' Motion to Compel”).[2] 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.[3] Based on further review, the undersigned finds that additional information is necessary to rule on the two Motions to Compel.

         Regarding Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel, Defendants have previously submitted a revised Exhibit 1 “describing privileged communications sent by Citco employees to in-house counsel….”[4] 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.[5]

         Regarding Defendants' Motion to Compel, the entries still at issue reference “Mourant” or “Mouvant, ”[6] “MTBA, ” and “UCBI.”[7] 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).

         Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, on or before Friday, December 29, 2017, the Citco Defendants shall submit: (1) a revised Exhibit 1[8] 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.[9]

         IT 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.

---------

Notes:

[1] R. Doc. 481.

[2] R. Doc. 483.

[3] See, R. Doc. 506.

[4] R. Docs. 499-2 & 499-3.

[5] 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.

[6] 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.