New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

Mediation Presentation Reviewed by Party to Refresh Recollection for Deposition Ordered Produced — 3-Part Test, and 9 Factors Considered, for Production under Rule 612

Download PDF

From Greenwood Realty, Inc. v. Action Realty, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15586 (D.S.C. Feb. 15, 2011):

This matter is before the court on ‘[Defendants’] Motion to Compel ... [Plaintiffs] to produce an electronic copy of a 90 slide Power Point presentation first presented at the mediation of this case on September 13, 2010, and photocopies of any copy of such presentation provided to any witness and relief plaintiff that has already testified or will testify in a deposition in this case pursuant to Rule 37(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ***

A party may discover any writing, even one subject to privilege, used to refresh a witness's memory for the purpose of testifying, whether his memory is refreshed "while testifying, or before testifying, if the court in its discretion determines it is necessary in the interests of justice." Fed. R. Evid. 612. In determining whether use of documents to prepare for a deposition constitutes a "testimonial" use of the records sufficient to trigger a waiver of the work product doctrine, the court must be satisfied that: (1) a witness used the writing to refresh his or her memory; (2) for the purpose of testifying; and (3) in the interest of justice, the adverse party is entitled to see the writing. See Nutramax Labs., Inc. v. Twin Labs., Inc., 183 F.R.D. 458, 468 (D. Md. 1998).

During the deposition of Jane Callison, Defendants' counsel inquired as to a document that the witness had in her possession during the deposition. The document was a copy of the presentation at issue in this motion. Plaintiffs' counsel objected to any questions regarding the document, claimed work product privilege, and instructed the witness not to answer. Upon further examination, the witness testified that she reviewed the document overnight "and will continue to look at it." Callison Dep. at pp. 14:23 - 15:5.... Based on this deposition testimony, the court finds that the witness used the document to refresh her memory for the purpose of testifying.

The court must now determine whether compelling production is in the interest of justice. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have failed to respond to numerous interrogatories and document requests concerning the specifics of the allegations of their Complaint. Defendants further represent that the presentation shown to them during the mediation sets forth the specifics of Plaintiffs' claims. Some of the relevant factors that the court may consider in its decision include (1) the status of the witness; (2) the nature of the issue in dispute; (3) when the events took place; (4) when the documents were reviewed; (5) the number of documents reviewed; (6) whether the witness prepared the document(s) reviewed; (7) whether the documents reviewed contain, in whole or in part, "pure" attorney work product; (8) whether the documents reviewed previously have been disclosed; and (9) whether there are credible concerns regarding manipulation, concealment, or destruction of evidence. See Nutramax, 183 F.R.D. at 469-70. In this case, the witness is a plaintiff and the dispute concerns allegations of misrepresentations which must be detailed to Defendants for their defense of the action. The documents were prepared by counsel and, although counsel has claimed work product privilege, the document has already been disclosed to Defendants albeit in mediation. Further, the witness reviewed the document just prior to the deposition and intended to maintain it in her possession throughout the deposition had counsel not removed it. Additionally, it appears that Plaintiffs have not provided full responses to Defendants' discovery requests requesting the details of their claims. Therefore, the court finds that it is in the interest of justice to compel Plaintiffs to produce a copy of the presentation.

Footnote 1 The court need not and does not make any findings regarding the applicability of a mediation privilege.

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

Criminal Spoliation Can Be A Due Process Violation — Defendant Must Show That (1) The Evidence Had Exculpatory Value Before It Was Destroyed, (2) Defendant Is Unable to Obtain Comparable Evidence by Reasonable Means, and (3) Bad Faith Failure to Preserve

1) Rule 11 Sanctions: “No First Amendment Exception to a Rule 11 Violation” — “[T]he First Amendment Covers Novel, Nonfrivolous Arguments, But Many Frivolous Arguments Are Also Novel” (Good Quotes) — Frivolous To Continue To Make Rejected Novel Arguments; (2) FRAP 38 Sanctions: District Court In Best Position to Set Sanctions, Attorney’s Fees and Costs

3 Prerequisites for Inherent Power and § 1927 Sanctions in Second Circuit: (1) Bad Faith, (2) Conduct That Is Entirely Without Color [Thus, An Ill-Motivated Colorable Position Appears to Be Protected in the Second Circuit], and (3) Improper Purpose— “To Gain A Strategic Advantage” Is An Improper Purpose — Due Process Satisfied by Opponent’s Motion and Multiple Court Conferences, After Which Target Was Allowed to Submit Additional Letters

Inherent Power Sanctions — Untimeliness as Laches — Laches Properly Applied to Deny Sanctions Motion — Note Waived Defenses to Laches

Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions: Substantial Justification or Harmless Error (Ninth Circuit Factors) — Erie: When State Supreme Court Has Not Squarely Addressed an Issue, Circuit Must Predict How It Would Rule, Using Intermediate Appellate Decisions, Decisions from Other Jurisdictions, Statutes, Treatises And Restatements for Guidance

(1) Appellate Review of Inherent Power Sanctions (7th Circuit): Factual Findings Reviewed for Clear Error, Choice of Sanction for Abuse of Discretion — 4-Element Test for Reversal; (2) Sanctions and Class Actions: Monetary Sanctions Properly Imposed on Defendants for Improper Communications with Class Members (Represented Parties) — “[I]f The Class And The Class Opponent Are Involved In An Ongoing Business Relationship, Communications From The Class Opponent To The Class May Be Coercive” (Good Quote); (3) Monetary Sanctions under Goodyear v. Haeger: If Same Fact-Gathering Would Have Been Conducted Absent The Misconduct, No But-For Causation — But Only “Rough Justice” Required, “Not Accountant-Like Precision” (Good Quote) — Once Misconduct Is Clear, Time Spent Ferreting It Out Compensable under Goodyear; (4) Goodyear Did Not Overrule Long-Standing Rule That Courts May Impose Modest Civil Monetary Sanctions to Curb Litigation Abuse; (5) Appellate Jurisdiction Lacking Where Sanctioned Attorney Fails to File Notice of Appeal and Lawyer’s Intent to Appeal Not Apparent from Client’s Notice; (5) Rule 11 Improper Purpose — Party May Have Many Purposes for Pursuing Claim — As Long As Claim Is Supported by Good Faith Belief in the Merits, “A Parallel Reason Does Not Violate Rule 11” — To Deny A Motion for Sanctions, The District Court Need Not Address Every Argument: “Arguments Clearly Without Merit Can, And For The Sake Of Judicial Economy Should, Be Passed Over In Silence” (Good Quote); Non-Monetary Sanction on Counsel: Complete Twice The Required Amount Of Professional Responsibility Hours For Her Next Continuing Legal Education Cycle Imposed By The State Bar

(1) Spoliation: Sanctions Are Warranted Only If the Movant Establishes That A Reasonable Trier of Fact Could Find That The Destroyed Evidence Would Support A Claim Or Defense — § 1927 Sanctions: “Courts Often Refuse to Award Sanctions When Both Parties Contributed to the Waste of Judicial Resources” (Good Quote)

No Sanctions Imposed on Counsel Who Submitted A.I.-Generated Phony Cases Without Checking Them in Good Faith on The Mistaken Assumption They Had Been Provided by Highly Respected Co-Counsel Rather Than His Criminally-Convicted, Disbarred Client — No Sanctions on Client Who Had No Access to LEXIS or Westlaw to Check the Phony Cases and Submitted Them in Good Faith: “It Would Have Been Downright Irrational For Him To Provide Fake Cases For [His Lawyer] To Include In The Motion Knowing They Were Fake —

(1) Electronic Spoliation — Rule 37(e)(2) Dismissal Sanction — Temporal Proximity of Spoliation to Production Due Date = Circumstantial Evidence of Intent; (2) While Discovery Sanctions Are Reviewed For Abuse Of Discretion, Findings Of Fact Related To Discovery Sanctions Are Reviewed For Clear Error; (3) Dismissal under Rule 37(e)(2) Plus Attorney’s Fees under Inherent Power Appropriately Combined [But see 2015 Advisory Committee Note: “New Rule 37(e) … authorizes and specifies measures a court may employ if information that should have been preserved is lost, and specifies the findings necessary to justify these measures. forecloses reliance on inherent authority or state law to determine when certain measures should be used.”]; (4) Compensatory Sanctions under Goodyear v. Haeger Appropriately Include Fees and Costs Resulting from Attempts to Settle Spoliation Motion

(1) FRAP 38 Sanctions Inapt for Appeal That Is Weak — “Borderline Frivolous” — Test Is Whether Appellant Should Have Known the Appeal Had Absolutely No Chance of Success — (2) Lay Opinion Testimony under Rule 701: Nub of Helpfulness Requirement Is to Exclude Testimony When the Witness Is No Better Suited Than the Jury to Assess the Issue; (3) Appeals: No Appeal from Denial of Motion for Judgment As a Matter of Law Unless Appellant Made That Motion Before Case Was Submitted to Jury

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice