Opinion
Case No. 2:12-cv-510
06-11-2014
Safety Today, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Susan Roy, et al., Defendants.
JUDGE MICHAEL H. WATSON
Magistrate Judge Kemp
OPINION AND ORDER
On October 11, 2013, the undersigned ruled that the attorney-client privilege did not protect documents relating to Safety Today's preparation and mailing of a letter to its customers which, according to the Defendants' counterclaim, misrepresented the substance of Judge Watson's October 12, 2012 preliminary injunction order. Safety Today, Inc. v. Roy, 2013 WL 5597065 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 11, 2013). Safety Today filed a motion to reconsider that ruling. Judge Watson subsequently denied the motion. See Doc. 191. In his order, Judge Watson ordered Safety Today to "deliver the withheld documents to the Magistrate Judge for in camera inspection within SEVEN DAYS of this Order." Doc. 191, at 8-9.
The documents in question were timely delivered on May 23, 2014. The Court has now reviewed them. The purpose of the Court's review was to determine if the documents are relevant to the counterclaim - and, more specifically, if they are relevant to the assertion that sending the customer letter constituted tortious interference. The relevance standard applied by the Court in its review is the familiar one from Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1): in order for these documents to be produced to the Defendants, they must be "relevant to any party's claim or defense" and "reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence."
How the letter was drafted, who participated in the drafting or provided input, and what input was given, are all relevant issues. Having reviewed the documents in question (none of which bear Bates numbers), the Court concludes that each of them satisfies the criteria listed in Rule 26(b)(1). They document the initial concept of a customer letter (which was first discussed almost two months before Judge Watson's ruling), the drafting process of the letter which forms the basis of the tortious interference counterclaim, the input provided by various individuals, the stated purpose of sending the letter, and how the final version was decided upon. Because all of these documents are relevant, and because this Court has ruled that none of them are protected by the attorney-client privilege, Defendants are entitled to them. Safety Today is therefore ordered to produce to Defendants, within seven days, copies of the same documents which it submitted for in camera inspection.
Any party may, within fourteen days after this Order is filed, file and serve on the opposing party a motion for reconsideration by a District Judge. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A), Rule 72(a), Fed. R. Civ. P.; Eastern Division Order No. 91-3, pt. I., F., 5. The motion must specifically designate the order or part in question and the basis for any objection. Responses to objections are due fourteen days after objections are filed and replies by the objecting party are due seven days thereafter. The District Judge, upon consideration of the motion, shall set aside any part of this Order found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
This order is in full force and effect, notwithstanding the filing of any objections, unless stayed by the Magistrate Judge or District Judge. S.D. Ohio L.R. 72.3.
Terence P. Kemp
United States Magistrate Judge