135

PDF Document Uploaded Feb 2, 2026 by Unknown Updated by admin 1 views 1.51 MB
Folders as described.
DOJ Epstein Release Interview Victim Statements Evidence Maxwell
← Back to Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 1;15-cv-07433 (S.D.N.Y. 2015)
Extracted Text

Case Document Filed Page of Sweet D.J Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre Giuffre or Plaintiff has moved to compel Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell Maxwell or Defendant J:b produce documents withheld on the grounds of privileg 13ased on the conclusions set forth below the motion is granted in part ahd denied in rt I Pr.:i.or roeding Plaintiff filed a complaint this cou rt on September alleging ci ing le le:famatiQh claim S.ee Compl As set forth in the Courts Febr.:9 r:-y Opiriion denying Defendants motion to dismiss this case concerns Defendants statements denying Plaintiffs allegations concerning Defendants role in Plaintiffs sexual abuse as a minor On February Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel Defendant to respond to interrogatories to which Defendant has claimed the protection of the attorney-client attorney-client-agent and common interest privileges Oral argument was held on March During argument the Court held that in camera review was warranted for purposes of Case Document Filed Page of determining whether privilege applied to the documents in question and Defendant was directed to file any further submissions necessary to establish her privilege claim On March Defendant submitted a declaration and exhibits in opposition to Plaintiffs motion at which point the matter was deemed fully submitted II The PrivS.l.ege Claims at I sue Defendant has withheld pages of emails with communications involving various combinations of Brett Jaffe Esq Jaffe Mark Cohen Esq Cohenn Philip Barden Barden Ross Gow Gow Brian Basham Basham and The facts that follow summarize Defendants assertions regarding her relationship to each of these individuals Defendant hired Jaffe then of Cohen Gresser LLP to represent her in connection wlth legal matters in the United States at some indeterminate point in Def Deel of L.A Menninger in Supp Def.s Resp to Pl.s Mot to Compel Production of Docs Subject to Improper Privilege ECF No Case Document Filed Page of Ex I MaxweU Deel Defendant does not set forth an end date to Jaffe representation but swears that when JaffE left Cohen Gresser Mark Cohen continued as her counsel Id JI Defendant hired Barden of DevonshireSolicJtorson Marc:h4 to represent her in connection with legal matters in England and Wales Id JI Defendant hired Gow her media agent on fhe same date Id JI Defendant communicated pursuant toa common interest agreement between them and their respective counsel Id ll Defendant und;rst od to be act in as understood for some unidentified period of time Id i Defendant has not established the nature of her relationship with Basham Case Document Filed Page of Defendants withheld emails can be organized as follows Communications with Jaffe on March Communications with Gow on January Communications with Gow and Basham on January Communications with Barden a On January Communications with Barden and Gow a On January On January and On January On Jariuary Communications with a On January On January Between January and including forwarded email between Barden and including forwarded email between Barden Defendant and Cohen Between January and Communications with on January Some emails eie forwardea or carbon copied CCd later in the chain leading to some oVerlap and duplication Whether one party or another was direct recipient or a CCd recipient of an email is not sigriificant f6r purposes of the privilege analysis as the waiver issue is determined by the purpose of the third-partys inclusion in the cormnunications not necessarily whether the communication was directed toward them by copy or direct email See Morgan New York State This organization is derived from Defendants privilege log Issues with respect to characterizations in the log will be addressed infra All references preceded by refer to the Bates stamp number of Defendants in camera submissions Case Document Filed Page of Dept of Envtl Conse vation A.D.3d N.Y.S.2d pri,."ilege J,ost when documents were carbon copied to a thi party iee l:so infra IV Defendant claims the ttorn y7 clien pi,:ivilege qpplies to groups and the at t9 cl geo,t a priyilege applie.s to groups through and the GQ on ri.t es i pzjiyii ge pplies to groups and See Def In C-alleJi;,,t 265brn i ii communications wi th cpynsel Jc Jfe and oncl,;:m solicitor Barden Defe ndant does not d,i pute that th coinmunications with Jaffe are governed by the priv ilege law of Ne York State Def.s Supp Mem of Law tn esp to Pl.s Mot to Compel Production of Documents pbj ct to Improper Claim of Privilege ECF No at Def.s upp Opp see also Fed Civ Allied Irish Banks Bank of Am N.A F.R.D S.D.N.Y Because this Courts subject matter jurisdiction is based upon diversity state law provides the ule of decision concerning the claim of attorney-client Case Document Filed Page of privilege However Defendant submits that a choice of law issue arises with respect to her communications with Barden Id at Defendant has not specified whether she seeks to withhold documents containing communications with Barden subject to the British legal-advice or litigation privileges Rather Defendants privilege log lists the attorney"-client privilege with respect to the Barden conirnurd.cations and broadly asserts that all privileges asserted are pursuant to British lawr Colorado law and NY law Privilege Log at Defendant argues Ms Maxwells communications with Mr Barden should be construed pursuant to British law Def.s supp Opp at It is only in Defendants in camera filing that Defendant has provided any legal argument supporting an assertion of protection under British privilege law Defendants claim is based on two suppositions first that the UK litigation privilege protects communications to and Defendant argued in supplemental opposition that Ms Maxwell has not had sufficient time to secure appropriate affidavits documents and legal opinions concerning British laws attorney client privileges seeking additional time to submit these materials Def.s Supp Opp at Case Document Filed Page of from c:i cliE;mt and her attorney and to a third party Deel of L.A Menningel in Supp Def In Camera Submissions Menninger Deel.NI emphasis in original Second that the scope of privilege is wider than explicit legal advice provided in the context of Li tigaJ ion encompassing communications related to actual or conye ated j;,:t;igatr:i:on J:ci elphasis in orig:b i a Defendant uppo rts tn se a;r guments with citation to Belabel Air r:n.ctii i BJ Lorct Ta y,l,or an,q i t:,s progeny ThrJ Rivers i aa.n O,:f nglp 1d Di.scJ su.r i No SJ and No 4J UJ HL Lord Tay QJ pp.;i.n,ion i.n elabPl explicitly addresses whether Jthe _leg,iJ professiona.lJ p:tiyiJ.ege extends only to communications seeking or conveying legal advice or to all that passes be.tween 265.icitor and client on matters within the ordinary business ofa olicitor Bi:ilabel Ch Lord Taylor discusses at length whether communications between a solicitor and client are privileged if they do not contain explicit legal advice ultimately deciding the scope of the privilege is wider Td at the test is whether the communication or other document was made confidentially for the purpose of legal advice However Defendants citation does no support the statement for which it is directly cited that waiver does not apply to communications including a third-party Case Document Filed Page of if for the purpose of contemplated litigation Plaintiff with the aid of British counsel and without having seen Defendants British law argument submits an interpretation of British law directly contradicting Defendants This precarious support provides an insufficient foundation for the Court to apply foreign law to Defendants claims See Tansey Cochlear Ltd No SJF SIL WL at E.D.N Sept the party relying on foreign law has th burden of showing such law bars production of documents quOting HrigtitEdge Techs Inc Searchmetrics GmbH WL Cal Aug iriternal quotation marks omitted Moreover at least one New York court has found that British privilege law is apparently similar to New Yorks Aetna Cas Sur Co Certain Underwriters at Lloyds London Where there is no attorney involved in the communication there can be no legal advice privilege under English Law in absence of any express obligation of confidentiality Plaintiff submits that privilege does not attach to communications involving Ross Gow and the lawyer Under Eng.lish Law communications between client and lawyer through an agent will be protected by legal advice privilege but this will only apply in situations where the agent functions as no more than a mere conduit Pl.s Reply in Response to Def.s Supp Mem of in Resp to Pl.s Mot to Compel the Production of Documents Subject to Improper Claim of Priv at emphasis removed Pl Reply Case Document Filed Page Misc 2d N.Y,S.2d Sup Ct citing Waugh British Rys Bct AC H.L affd sub nom Aetna Ca Sur Co er:tain Uncter-writers at Lloyd!s A.D.2d N.Y.S.2d That court found that both doctrines iequire that legal advice be a predominate purpose of A der Nr Y9.ir iW r:eq1,1j ing i a orun nic:ation betwee,n an at:t orn ii TTl c!E tn tJte c.;;pur of the representation l9 to the fPQ!i pf P:1J ovi ding leg actvice Compare T;hree i wers DG is sur,e N,o A i th geop,le Mi tgpe,1-,l Jf 2d The policy purposes Of privilege in both jurisdictions also mfr,i::or pne anp ther Oil p.ar _Balabe:L a he basic prinqipJe jqsl:;Jfying leg9-J profes:;io11al privilege arises from the public int.erest req uj_ring full apd frank exchange of confidence between solicitor and client to enable the latter to receive necessary legaFadvice with People Mitchell N.Y.2d N.E.2d C.P.L.R purpose is to ensbr that one seeking legal advice will be able As reasoned infra the predominate purpose of the communications is the primary issue with respect to Defendants claim that privilege applies to the communications with Barden Case Document Filed Page to confide fully and freely in his attorney secure in the knowledge that his confidence will not later be revealed to the public to his detriment or his ernbarrassmentff Even the purposes for which Defendant cites British law--to assert that the scope of privilege can i encompass communications to non attorneys ii made outside the ontext of pending litigation--are directly addressed by elements of New York law Respectively i New Yorks agency and common interest privileges extend the umbrella of attorney-client communications to third parties and ii the analysis regarding the predominance of legal advice in the communications at issue and Ambac Assur Corp Countrywide Home Loans Inc both expand the scope of privilege to protect certain content unrelated to ongoing litigation See infra IV Indeed Defendant refers to New York law citations to support her argument about the protection provided ursuant to British legal authority.ff Menninger Deel citing NY law for same principle.ff A choice of law analysis need not be reached where the law applied is not outcome determinative On Time Aviation Inc Bombardier Capital Inc Appx 2d Cir A.D.3d N.Y.S.2d holding litigation i not per se necessary for app.lication of the common interest privilege Case Document Filed Page where as 11etE a:U ge i fa iJ c6mmuriieat ions to place iri a foreign cq untry or in volved foreign attorneys or i:iiti if ie i:it em a in erif.ial1 m1e,si hat fo ghl aw contrary Yi 4tJ 267:.J,iitii:i __ iif,i:i 1t i i i tq li ti fi tj The Court has previously held that New York has the i t;ir i fi fi i i1 i fv.t ii ii.ti Jfl predominate i te rest iti his ca c;ftitf.t ir Miixwell No Jtl id litfi 4.i.ftt i_ _t i,,i CIV RWS WL at S.b N.Y Feb ii i i tl:j i 1tl iij ti t1t tti rr Because Ne York has the most significant interest New i ll rft f9 tr"r v.r York law appii The potential litigation for which i l.H f.f:J if ii i i Defendant sought Bardenis advice never came to fruition and no i _,:fXL Ji r_ pending issues i or relating tb Britain have been pled Thus Jt iit J1ii f-r i any consequence resulting from a ruling on the confidential i ty of the Barden communications will sound only in New York the situs of this case and the location of the allegedly defamatory statements a issue New Yo.rk therefore has the edominate Case Document Filed Page i.nterest in whether these communications remain confidential The similarity between New York and British attorney-client privilege demonstrates that no public policy conflict exists Consequently New York law applies to all of Plaintiffs privilege claims IV Applicable Standa:i:;d The purpose of the attorney-client privilege is to facilitate and safeguard the provision of legal advice to ensure that one seeking legal advice will be able to confide fully and freely in his attorney.ll Mitchell N.Y.2d at New York law provides Unless the client waives the privilege an attorney or his or her employee any person who obtains without the knowledge of the client evidence of a confidential communication made between the attorney or his or her employee and the client in the course of professional employment shall not disclose or be allowed to disclose such communication nor shall the client be compelled to disclose such communication in any action N.Y.C.P.L.R a The privilege only applies to attorney-client communications primarily or predominately of a legal character Rossi Blue Cross Blue Shield of Greater N.Y Case Document Filed Page N,Y.2d Y.S,2d N.E,2d internal quotatibn ma:r omitted Ho lever reference to non legal matters i COJWTIUni.cations primarily of a legal ch ract are protected Id The critica inquiry is whether view;i,ng the lawyers communication in its full content and ontex it was made in order to rend legal advice or services to the client Id quoting Spectrumsys Int Corp Chem.Bank N.Y.2d N.Y.S.2d The presence of a third party during communication or disclosure of otherwtse confidential attorney-client communications to a thircl party waives the privilege absent an exception People Os6rio N.Y.2d N.E.2dll83 There exist an ekception referred to as the agency privilege wh en the thi.td party facilitates the tendering of legal advice Such a:S communic ations made by the client to the attorneys employees through an interpreter or to one serving as an agent bf i ther the attorney or client Id Similarly the common interest privilege extends the attorney-client privilege to protect the confidentiality of communications passing from one party to the attorney for another party where a joint defense effort or strategy has been decided upon and undertaken by the parties and their respective Case Document Filed Page counsel United States Schwimmer F.2d 2d Cir To show the common interest privilege applies the party claiming its protection must show the communication was made in the course of the ongoing common enterprise with the intention of furthering that enterprise A limited common purpose necessitating dis losur is sufficient and a total identity of interest among the participants is not requir under New Yo.z;-k law.llGUS Consulting GMBH Chadbourn tke LLP isc 3d N;Y.S:2d Sup Ct Despite their shorthand names neither the agenc;yprivilege nor the common--:inter st pri yi1ege oper ate independently both may only exist to pardon the presumptive waiver that would result from disclosure of otherwise privileged attorney-client communications to a third party when that third-party is included under the umbrella of the agency or common-interest doctrines See U.S Bank Nat Assn APP Intl Fin Co A.D.3d N.Y.S.2d Before a communication can be protected under the common interest rule the communication must satisfy the requirements of the attorney client privilege Don Singer Misc 3d A N.Y.S.2d Sup Ct The attorney-client privilege may extend to the agent of a client where the corrununications are Case Document Filed Page intended to facilitate the provision of legal services to the client citations c1nc;I i.nternal quotation marks omitted The party assert.ing rotect Qn bears the burden of proving each element of pri V;j and lack of waiver Os J;io at at llf.l qi t,ations mit ted oEg.iazaryan Zalmay,e i li A S-:Q SuGh showings must C1 i9 hFPY91"l a fj,,i:davits deposition test.i Il P,Ji Qt1 ot.h,e i a9nd ssj qJ;e vi dence Icl citing von Bulow by Auersperg yon Bulow F.2d 2d Gir c,ei nie c;l in lh l0 lS 2d Bgwne Jnc i A.m 3a Corp S.D,.N BJ I lainti;ff Mot ion tti Co1tipe1 i ranted in Part and en;i,.ed in Part Consistent with the aforementioned standards to survive the instant motion to compel Defendant must establish an attorney-client relationship existed the withheld documents contain a communication made within the context of that relationship for the purpose of obtaining legal advice and the intended confidentiality of that communication and Case Document Filed Page maintenance of confidentiality via a lack of waiver or an exception to waiver such as extension via the common interest privilege or the agency privilege See Safeco Ins Co of Am M.E.S Inc F.R.D LD.N applying New York law citing Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank Morgan Stanley CV SAS WL at S.D.N.Y Oct Colntunications with Jaffe Are Privill;lgE!d An attorney-client relationship is established where there is an explicit undertaking to perform a specific task Pellegrino Oppenheimer Co A D.3d N,Y.S.2d Defendant has sworn that she hired Jaffe in to represent her in connection with a deposition Maxwell Deel Though Defendant has failed to specify the end-date of Jaffes representation the in camera submissions demonstrate that these communications were made within the context of an ongoing attorney-client relationship for the purpose of providing legal advice related to the specific task for which Defendant hired Jaffe Defendant intended that the communications remain confidential Maxwell Deel I The communications themselves were solely between attorney and Case Document Filed Page client dernon t;"rating la.ck of waiver Accordingly Defendants sti.btnd.:ss.totLs are privileged irhlt tiir onunurti;o 267.t;ionts th1s gt:Oii-p a;t yr,T contained 1,if fi a-q Sif i icJ i i i1n i d,f Defendant ov ft tf atgurnent relevant to the applicatio of 261v:i.lege l6 ails t;iev oid of ny attorney-,.client q.immuni1rati:i:blI en he PR a nt Of a Jegal C.h?l:ia fer mt Hi i!w ti tent oin rct,en indipaJ D9 Pb commuri,iis ii tti i iia i tor i the p1:utp ose aci J.;ita ting GoWr pu blTc i JL t:!on ef tlL Rega:f af.ess without an attorney-client tr co uni at!Lon t:,t fac:llit.lte it cannot said that Gow 267pre:s rice 261nput was necessary to somehow clarify or imptove comprehe-n ion of Defendant cornmunications,with counselt as the standard requirElS See Egiazaryan at As such Defendant argues Egiazar an does not apply Def Supp Opp at Defendant distinguishes that case as involving a public refations ti rm here th.is case involves a public relations agent:n Id As reasoned infra the Court does not rely on Egiazaryan for the prfnciple that a public relbt.ions firm or agent or specialist cannot be deemed an agent for purposes of privilege protection Case Document Filed Page Defendant has not met her burden of demonstrating that the communications fall beneath the umbrella of attorney-client privilege and cannot be rehabilitated by the extension provided by the agency privilege Defendant must produce the emails in Communications with Gow and Basham Must ae Produced The se emails documents are between Defendant and Gow with Basham CCd Basham was therefore a third-party privy to these communications between Defendant and Gow Defendant has not jdentified Basham Therefore Defendant has failed to establish an attorney client relationship an attorney-client communication of a predominately legal character and lack of waiver Accordingly documents are not privileged and Defendant must produce these emails Communications with Barden Alone Are Privileged fendant submits in her upplemental reply and in camera submissions that these communications are non respons i as they contain only communications betw ee fendant and Barden and th party parti ipat in thi mail Case Document Filed Page i I I correspondence Menninger Deel ll Supp Reply at Oocumen.ts conta,.in ommunications hetween Defendant and Bail,de:n fiOW ei dQcum.ents include Gow and;cesmb;ain i fo a:r cfJ.1 pm q:thEi Po.ouments ill be addressed td n.f.r 5J as these documents are responsive to Plain ti:,f;f 66urrt rit No Defendant repres 242ntat ions of tnis l5 commurlication being unclear tlie Court addresse the,i,t tl if i!l li,r i tf Jr fT i ii ll ti ll:9 ttij i i thtO:i a Ji a i __ tt01 i OX man rs in onne ction hr 1r iefamatim1 lawsuits against the U:K p,te,.ss A j,.e,l ai il J4i wire fbd Barden to tep esent i re:garc:ii ng the ffi at1g i:l tD op;tinu to r;epr.es iit be M1;1,tw.e,Ll De i fencta bm:ft i tl Barden isstrect ia;1 cease and i Pla infiffs Document Request No All documents relating to commuriicatloris with Defendant and Ross Gow from 2005-Present McCawle 2J d!I 2ns9Hg e9 i PlY t9 tp Compel Pr6ducti6ri of D6cs Subject to Improper objections anct Improper Claim of Priv ECF No Ex at Defendarit has not provided a contract or representation ag,r ffi.E:Htt to ubstc;1.ntiatELth,e dates of t_he relationship though she aiieges on ex:i:sts Menninger oecl II Likewise nO materi,q subst;antiat rden role other han a largely bla_nk print-out from the Devonshire Solicitors website Maxweli Dec;l Ex This print-out does not contain Barden legal education profEissional accreditation or any other explicit indication that he was qualified counsel at the time of the communi cati ns other than he implicit logical assumption that Case Document Filed Page desist to British press though no litigation ever materialized Maxwell Deel Defendants sworn affidavit coupled with the content of the communications including a comment by Barden referring to having been retained by Defendant are sufficient to stablish Barden undertook the specific task for which Defepdant has alleg she hired him in sworn affidavit See Pellegrino A 3d at It is similarly established by these ma terials that th se communications were made in the c9ntext of that relationship Defendants affidavit swears the communications we,re intended to be confidential Maxwell Deel JI Defendant has sworn that all of her communications ith Barden.were for the purpose of see ing legal advice However the content of the communications addresses matters not legal on their face specifically a press statement See id Not all communications betw en an attorney and client are privileged and one who seeks out an attorney for business or personal advice may not assert a privilege as to those communications Matter of Bekins Record Storage Co Inc N.Y.2d N.E.2d Moreover even if inherently related to ongoing litigation cJase law makes clear that a media having been called a hard nosed litigator he must have been qualified to practice law at some point in time Case Document Filed Page campaign ls not a litigation strategy Egiazaryan F.R.D at 2:itadon oini ttecl Nbtw ithst nding the court must consider the commi.in icafi6ns in the t1J cont12it Ros s.i N.Y.2dat Alone It w6utd __ i __ I __ press stat4!ifh as legal aavioe Nev rthel Defendant asse t.fd t.rilff st ttiftrteht Ts a llecess i ty pfciturs8 ittfg:iit tlrld e.he tiir cofumerit laws ot the uf chahgi th for which Defendant sou ght Barden advice the communication wi th akr i ri is dornfnlf ly for the purposes of providihg 1ega1 service oelencl1fit hls thE?refote met ne burden or esttiblishfng C6mmtifri citions w:ith Barden and Gow 267Must Be Produced Defendant claims the protection of tl1e attorney-client and agen cy privileges apply to communications with Barden and Gow See Privilege Log These communications include documents as set forth above and Defendants Two chains in this series and appear to be forwarded in their entirety The messages to Case Document Filed Page privilege log does not list as a communication between Defendant Barden and Gow but the chain nonetheless does include a message between this group and it is analyzed acco rdingly Defendant argues Gow is the agent for Ms Maxwell thus ta.king advantage of the principle that attorney:.client privilege may apply to communications between an agent anct the clienUs counsel Def Supp Opp at The test dividing agency and thus privilege protection and-lack thereof and thus waiver is the ne.cessity of the third.,a-party in facilitating the confi dential communications between courrsel arid client Mileski Locker Misc 2d N;Y.S.2d Sup Ct accord Don N.Y.S.2d Egiazaryan F.R.D at Defehdants citations with respect to this issue are inappos.ite referring to agents who more explicitly facilitated attorney-client communication Defendants most reievant will be addressed infra The messages contained between Defendant Barden and Gow are addressed in this section The title agent is not determinative of whether Defendants privilege assertion survives the applicable test For example Hendrick Avis Rent i:ar Sys Inc involved a quadriplegic plaintiff who has been involved in a catastrophic car accident rendering him unable to seek legal Case Document Filed Page I i I g.itat.-i 0Jh i t,Q,c ln r.e Gr 1nd Jur Subpoenas Supp 2d D,:N a 225:swnicti qi.irec.tlty addressed the r:ole of publi o:.t onficientia1 c;ommunications between lawyer.s anc:i public telati6ns consultants hired by the lawyers to assistth 261nde.illing with the media in cases such as this thaJ are mape fot the purpose of giving qr receiving l1 ii2 lri li tq tf ll jidatiUJ cr Jo1e ih at h,e 2W i i afd i in ltin i i ttl a Jii i oeq Ji i IL lh a,r ji tgh ti:9 as Ji tli i ii feJ afl i 0i q_wts telatlion hi!pi tm oefenda:nt hit ttijg 1t ci tl couns b6th physic.3lly arid einotionaTly Supp i87f W.b:1LY Mileski Locker involv.ed interpretation to suritjou a Li iriguqge A;r:riei t;,isq a:t 2d at in First Am commercial Bancor rnc Saat chi ea AO n.c __ i;ipJ,Jk b.n l1 i i stap 3e ap ff siy agency agreernent between the Defendant company and third party was provided to the court and upon which the court reli ed Stroh Geh i tof co i:-e tri i..;Jed a tragic underlyi car accident wherein the 76-year old Plaintiff had lost control of her vehicl driven into a park Stroh Gen Motors Cor A.D ct N.Y.S 2d That court 1presented with an aged wornan required to recall and perhaps relive what was probably the most traumatic experience of her life held the presence of Plaintiff daughter who had select.ed Plaintiffs counsel and driven her to th law office was necessary to facilitate Plaintiffs communications with counsel Id at I i 4t f?l i wv e?N 0i C?iؽ?ɻ y(KC3 A R,?S y?M AZ SW B?G i o?kbs?g jꣻ Grמ 0?pDkаi?HU Ã7F l?к Im(z w?C?j Av A Fkjh hd v?Y J?Z i b?g Vd K!?y Nw??KK?9?m c??m GX aP?E a?M ռ??k;L P??G M?k s?V?r?m?O m?uO wix?Q?v d?W I au??w m?e?TtƗ??ڊ mYB o?G7 E?z ж?T L?FW1??o kb A??wW w1 tP?:?Ĝh AU w?f?B A ȱvp?v a?fjW E??Xf ny 剻:?h xF D?B G??g P?Q 8S rf?GRd mq 4P ZL4 dk tq rs ʮ?Ya QH cU A Iʠ?!p tv X?s ϒk?:??īǠN w.?Rܭ TW j?M?m έM D?w?y?PD Du ƙltɾ c?סiw":)H tf?W?8z X?Y ga x?c ɯc?a a vø b?y WW?o?h?_j 48y?:?KsaN8ߡJa xg s?M nR GR颐l??P 1P Y??h f?o?h i8?Vp H?E?z ݫ?F J?v??L N?w?붍 hsx i?n?ɕ??V XiO?n?R xv?h??ك 0ZN?V c?ج _9 3ox b_ yY uJ?t7 D?0r??CrJ ι?9A??eL4z w??iI WRE a M?s 9P Vi?tl o"J Gǘ ŭ1 i O?ߙ 2W oүK Vs xspr J?x T??q?NI SiX Fi?k g?z P??Q w?l u?k H??ƅ?H k3 ju??k??V XHVd v?Ť 2?u?rU eg7Q mw?N,0吅 Hg 1UCaB OAE4?P?t Ej3V h?L2Z?5t m??c r?L7 ȗz H?Eg?p??ך r?EH?E??a0 Q?y b?F/?e?D PV9gs K?p.J nkHP0D q?h N-q DN?lI t?h?z?k?ch aY(?xz 5nɖ dPN?"??땧 Hp?M YŸ Bu Ch 8s Kj 3f FУ0?R!3?N2G?lfr?w??wSC yS EҲeV?T ӕ8?d d?A a jE!E pd酤?d??"?D G?ϥv f.?D k㲤?5 Vm!Y 1GL?wwzi s?R Q??b φւW V?X Eҫw?ģWW f?.?z?TRe XY?v Fb gbw D?CCBS?r Cf z7 ht DÈ?b?b C?R O?B k?H WX Y7?.?MSD?ϚU Q?R qN Ev?6 cij bqɻq I y?e??Y GX l?w?Λ d?y Eq q?RpJ ة?c/?RYj8?0Ǟ I hd s??lŢQ??Z tS I年ʌ P?N蚠??o Zi??q w??x?f W?jbtS ibBͿ Mv??K3 κ??k n?t RV M5 OiE?ظ?h Wk??n_n Cԝ dy?c 4E L:y??q Vr I?d8 wR?5 3L j?i MZ?x?q p?Ԉ 2L J?I mÊ jC??y Ɯo?j Y?C?庁J q?MN8٠ G??R u?t O8 i?ē yE aޡ?D C?BP Rʴn Eł?D XV 7c?xX9 t??x Zn T3 qW2 y.rb??6ys?U haκ 2T JΨ?wcw0 saT _cz I?Ě?ߊ Rl x5U?EI OJ 2D o0 vQ Jx?T j?p 2pCO qu?.B i aΥ fL iC?;?m g?J i R??A3ɘ?a i 9??N?nYA lMN?lxu_ р?M??A yMgn?u Cq lb g?Ґ aɌ-?i EU ZƆ N?zW So l5?Ͳ?JF y??z i k?_j Tr?zMs d뎸)?Q an5 _?sA?N??cP ۦ"f P,0Z?A U??jr?El?l e?g ID?SG?"?O zg 㞬??X?ޝB?W öfE m??t b?U?Am V5k?T X?q1 S?nĞ MT n3 a?a pF??m r?z ՠH??m ιxY i I Tu wsqj?Ȣ 8JAN 5_ MI 1l 0Kϕi?QR p?x?w?KK.Lp?q??b9?Y 擶f?_s ܔR;W L??ymW OO?f Aa E"R?Ijb O?Q?EQ RK??UҌ Rn XR1r Ay 3V A Mo C:v B?r?t 3j D??ʜ L??e F?W q?ԛ tO A?Y P:?TE Wͼ eS Q?b Kx?l8 s?T?d p?M H?Ԁx?K k_ 嵤??L J??䱆?TQ y?l 6?B?Qf n?ժ DWn?h妳 oh?W?m SW o?;y b??r t?c?U Sֈ θs Z??zW i sޤF8dXe??0?Y pK M?Jg ƌaa??3j Rբ8 n?S p3 XYb I?S ۴??q?sIÝ e?gl yh??u Av?PIs nw AQ Ui?s S??4RD 5E?2ʻ?IQK R-E lY Pt?y?ѐ?d T?d g?JőɃ Jn ӒP y?Hv tO Nbd??LJ?u?V?i ʡ?Y et W5 CP VQ!?sP i??A K0 a??e?J WW??z kB?R?o YQ G?B Q4?H?Xt O?7n?Ð?K q?W tB??s 9Q A P5 Ҕ?w?XF eAE2V e?A 7Gt I a pks AcX I?p??b?,Ua?Iu s?cP ſH!n?P oe nJ?s 3??L?IyEy M??z B4?ә?H ߩG s??U H?ݐ??X j??U?c?V i?dr eGW?A LY ѴO SA?A ie9 I d0q?:z?._wmwl y??E ܜ?v ⵡO Red?_ u?x E??Ǧ?c??5AlT i۹Y?E"?dj??S A sꏬ?e?9?o?e Ү?Z j?XbTb XN A t?Yeq 6NtH?XN??a??i Yt e_ yd?:?ރ bȾo ga HS pGk C?L ʓ??c 髛?W㾀l Nᵬ?6 poӌ pc?8xs ԃ??V?a5g S??n??hWd E?a SE gkKޠ fx?ɏn9Ŝ??p Z?D JZ??nE K?叔 H2 0X k7 ok slC6ј?eT l??S(q B?I e"fQb 8?MR?ا bH Nd?8 bE7 pM 鹷X CQ tAT?Jc 0q?G H?όo?8 hx!?gMya?c QS n?Փ y?L B?T h?v eYGU q?y IlL FR?1 s0 o5 xi x?ի ڣrR??D0 pzݖo?VLɟ Mw?E6X m1?h O?n?fE R??v y?q 5P r,t I x?M Xr??YZ?W w?n 6l?ǳ a w??t jO Hh b??Q I l!/g jl i X??J kd?g?I Gb?j JK A iM p?T qG??єcg??X Ԝ?o?pM eZ T0 c?X H?p?Eܯ?x M?:xA A2 a?CE5 Y?o?kl H7?P Fq?s?wJ?C H?G YN M??T ť6wr3 ԄPh?p sN 4շ vJmN pg U?Z 0a v9 XYcg 㟯3x?o s.?Y yq w?pI ΦW Yq蒐 v?5?ҌH y?j?Bi?Ż WS xg?E ʝ?VX iM I I??eXǗS nY CR?ʘ?h?ƈ?Ϫ?A f?Rpv qQ?v z0 C?AM?b i A e?aI é?Y E?!z Ҟ?D??a bO A ynr kQ W?o Wg KHX TW C?ע b?e gW??ĊY?N?C 9a?A Mk H?ډ O?O??p 5Ib n?i I?n Qm p?刑 fb2 2?G??BGf ѹ9 L?D1z RX o?ӳ Lid L?A??Tڽ o?G oǳT N?)?Ys eaY?G c-e?C I?VI2x?u y0 MJ KF H"Y mQ??mQT?D uk cZ?a ԓ??D G?BV O?s 1r vo-n?G nq?st?A??ߌj I fz _Z?t?X 8M?dǞ a?w ZTι?i?s_?,P U?J n8U SH wr KD??NT A nV W?jO k?g YK?m8 r5 x:?潜?L 1V??CV VT?u??mqg HU?4Eȿ?Ѽ?o I?ϩCO7 ޘ?Z8 bMC m?x?g?A K?(m i k??E Q?n oKM fc d?F Ǘ??U D?T S??H ę?L G?k GÇ A qH?8?YՋ?B?ϡO q?DhX?Du uh?R G??F eGՑ Fe O7 rn o_?J?u??bv ag ֈ?B Ǐ?gA?K H??NK0 I lE?Ǟ2 VX R:QW?f ȏ?F3hd Ad Ԝ?D Q?Y?Fd iTsmGl?Rq DT cL?3Mmt a h?Op i p?N?7a yR B?yص3__Z zяWy 0?eC _g f1 UG?6 n?Z Y_?g?Y D9 9ރ U??B MF n?w z??o?UY JW 1?sy??V?se ԇoy WuX?57?c??ݸZ?C Hr7?H j?V?g Da i?5?ԲA C?S RK?b j??wڸ??L ʰK?j tC?WYG??f?Mx?Aܡx??F _JG _X W5?,UsŠ i1 x?6A ze X_ mU3 mk t?H?pN??Zs rMv r?V En?K 4S?l ue5d IԂ??e?ķ w?j?S wA qSܮd Mub,?ɋ?9 F?tx iX?n??w lS?7 梯?,w Z?H hiW2r?vcnED Rl S?w WP?pj?b E?P q?ʬ?q O??p d?vŞ?Pv?ǭO 4r ZǶ Ty R?I 妺?M 9Ȩ T?f h8 rʩ N-jf?I ћO i 7?ىѣ?C dd G?P?Y/J ii?lm R4 DR xj?V B?郆?zt?yӵ?ů n?c g??V n9 H??É mD?"?L b?Q?cΰ kT KgdL g?3Z ߵ??:VK UA"d d?0t gB??n N?ɏ?F 1t i L?П?MuxtԶ V77??IZ?Dq fb pS??gW o??o 8K o殂 ht p??ɭ I ypY e?Y?Ƕ NV 8,?TeAѲ?pȍnkK I鴟CZހ9 FϚCqW A v0?N?l Qn?2 n?f?N ۄ?ety?g f?xH B"A?ݎ?i L??ώ DMs yA Y?;a L?I??ڌ?z?D1V 5I z?A Ǜi?B5G gN?y vE,6 fG?P??iJ?4?S dD Uk?4 ސX J?B rb eQe Ksbx?8 c??E L5 I?a ra??Hx?kloy?((N?d??M E6?i?Ub aF yJ p-L Z?X a TK?G x3 Q3D?0mk k?Q6 I zG QA 4Fk LMԫ I a Z?M B??D A?Xh XW Tɋpl?y?YW?a v?S??r i 6y?Գ?L7YD_,ug ۹A?Pa?e F:?et??X _t?q 5N Pv Bq l?J b?M gE?z?k VΦ گ?d?S pR I?GBi A Z?I W??J ju?D?q A??Ъ S?Y qQ?uS m?E K??eE Hy dܫ:?Cj j??JQ qZ a a WҤ??j??F P9 嫞?kp Gp A A ӕ?TG b?C LKVYX?Կ?,?f m?t?h ЇTa??v od rmȶ n?P j?d?y?s9 X?W m?w?5j?G ݟ1L DY A A?u 3W,t إ?tI ˠ??X f?K wm BW3 I a A ìn?Ind JuS Vp 0W?e V?W?w 4yJpYY?N?.??Ӑ??M ڏQ9 A D?N L?j?y 4?t??qM?g4?djm WE ADJ?olF?N a fc p6 i U?iAx gEw1 I ew?T?u?a?h հ?Z 0ϱ I Ƒ?Ap sa??B Qʊ?Ǻa ٴ?u ż?n?k l?I Hr.g?Ą?2 ww?P q?ti?s?z Di??Ym b??C?tRt K?jLF ℿ?V ʟ?U KS dO?P?2K ið j??E?hV I lw?8?ܐ M??a r5b x?m?Aڰ??t N2 i?iہ?z mZ jFK?б?q cs7 kKk??"6O yd?u0 A ĐS 0y jqJ v??n籙 4r Za?6 dO q?K I m?VA6 I?g V?s?M N?r Ja e?U U?w X?b??椟A D?M ZCA j?U d5 f?h?MPK k??A h?E-c?s Ŵ??QS e;e T2 V?aې?F 7뻎 VN h쑯CM?ˇ?5 A??M?s ԀɈ뎛 V?H/n DL쯱 MH FǷ:D?Up ލ?O A??Ȫ?سH z0 Uԍ 0pk K?ȗ i g?sC?NK a(m ьL g?G v?zT?t Ɩ?y?j V??f v2ab CUR vЙAy m?cog"??b kX?_?E ҫ??f,e?f?O wLXK_e?m G?Ȯ X0 CF YEI?2ݮk??z JmM?Ř??Ź P?x PD z??o?qj?Ʌp?fIm i-ED Lx b?b 3ϲ XL A?ٱ,?p g?pڷ 3P?d?Pyߗ Tm m?o w5 ވW涘?hv?Ծ??eTdRM rv I ST Jg R?Nԅ?/?X mQ i Aȥ?/?R Hp SB dh f!Щ ܠZ??f È?I?쥢m cb ӫ?V w?sR?u s?r uF yih?T U?h z??D?iR?JCc D?j??j?à j?Q gF!ɳ2ǤQ5??h ǭ?vΘ?6?z j?C A gJ Ӟb4 UxSQ ډ?rv?t ϛ?D Q??ϣ w-Nv?T A e??G??bP QU 3u Lk H??ս 3W?Lo s?s 묅1?舚 Ȍ?udQ??2 r?I D?If 8q Å?ঐ?iU7m Åj R?1ZEmV?w P_??r?"??nIhպV z?9x i??T i g?f G?K Ib UǕ?P Ԟ?r??msx Ck 4b XD wѝὅp 6Y ju ï-?ݜ?Pj M?u?h y?n T?G cz 3o mv?4v??p?A??hQ wg??s l?g 0x Pl?e a Ra?C lw ށU?MU F?n??Gh Oe п,ه2?X Z0?ɺ?M e?T 3_ r?Z?Bh i8s N?dZ g?I?缠??P?i g?i?Q o?af ZP?oD ut?_ c??r p?w 7Mp??A1d xV J??cp?v ʓg ʶg C?z?l??M jΙB SzE6 b?x ql kJ NpL i L??bv ϭ?m?i pZb 1T?T YL7 zP7 Gj4??K me?q ϗA?g cY8 BS VF qD?n7?l?i7 I j3.wr f?d 2ף8?Ro ؾe ϲ?K 1d Hw z?O??Ks pcb C?Ԏ Pw D?X a Fjh Case Document Filed Page Defendant has failed to positively establish that Gow was necessary to implementing Bardens legal advice Defendant repeatedly refers to Gow as an agent and references that Gow provided information to Barden at Defendants requests so as to further Mr Bardens ability to give appropriate legal advice Defendant as cited above relies on fair-comment law to prove G9w nt:lcessity in the relationship with Barden Def Supp Opp at However at best this establishes only that Gow input and presence potentially added value to Barden legal advice Tlhe necessity element means more than just useful and convenient but requires the involvement be indispensable or serve some specialized purpose in facilitating attorney client communicationsJDon N.Y:S.2d citing Natl Educ Training Grp Inc Skillsoft Corp WL S.D.N.Y The structure of fair comment law may require counsel to engage in public relations matters by providing a comment to press but it does not follow that counsel is unable to communicate with his client on that issue without a public relations specialist Advice on the legal implications of issuing a statement or its content is not predicated on public relations implications Likewise it has not been established that the Defendant was incapable of understanding counsels Case Document Filed Page advice on that subject without the intervention of a media agent or that Gow was translat:ing information between Barden and Defendant in the lite.ral or figurative sense That Gow issued the st,1tement cfi:;afted by Barden or signed a contract with Defendi:3.ntspeaksto his intimate involvement but not to his ne.oessity J:;i t-he third pa.rty presence is merely us.eful but.not n:e.cesJ;aXlyf.cthe 225pri.vil ge,d,s lost Allied lr:isn,Ban"ks P.L::C R,R;D at lO tcit?ttion and internal quotation m,;:i:tks omit;edf Qef npant hasfnot met burden to establish hat Gov1 was n:ece:ss to faoild,,ta:tei 1:he relationship with 267BI:t:tden as the tangcJr9r;t gJl.li:rns Sim:i.il 3El eferidant has failed to.establish that:the predominate purpose of tr1e cornrnunicat,ions in guestio11 was the ultimate provision of legal advice Throughout the communications Gow is involved for public relations matters Like several other exchanges involving Gow this line of emails was prompted by an inquiry from a report12r Case Document Filed Page rhese are not the necessary elements or evidence of facilitating legal advice between client and counsel Tobe sure some legal advice is included in the communications between Barden Defendant and Gow However as the quotes above demonstrate both Ba rden and Gow provide Defendant with what amounts to public relations not legal advice It is something between business and personal advice neither of which are privileged even when coming from counsel Matter of Bekins 2d Furthermore the protection of privilege is presumptively narrow not broad In re Shargel F.2d 2d Cir Since the privilege prevents di sclosure of relevant evidence and thus impedes the quest for truth it must be strictly confined within the narrowest possible limits consistent with the logic of its principle citation and internal quotation marks omitted Accordingly where Gows necessity has not been established Defendant cannot include the entire field of public relations matters into the realm of legal advice by virtue of a law that implicates press coverage It has not been established that Gows inpu on public relations matters was necessary for Barden to communicate with Case Document Filed Page i I Defendant o:r/,prbvide legal advicer or that the primary purpos Consequently Defendant has fai1ed to demonstrate the Hetnent necessary i stain the protection of privilege with respect to aS otlt,;ort li1 f;J li06J 4J arid i ff.r li f,ll r-t 1l if fii ti ti if XI f,!i Jf tr lf IK i JJ ii_ j;lf i 1-tts1 iJ i i L;r tf1r:1 i1 Btl tt i;t tt ij ti eotr;idh bfi Boirurl 1i 243rft 1f iI a th ll i i PPJ i a iti,-tin:s 4t rr f5 if a:Jr"lS eridofup ti jp Wtt;a lt.ff.QiP til Opi ifn i 1ttie s.,tif 7ir conttn i li th lil nclud comrnun ib a i ons wt 6t:1feiff 1i i i s1t Ttlecommun-it:atioh Tn ach of these chains include messages between Defendant Barden and Gow that were ultimately forwarded to As rea soned above attorney-client privilege does riot applyto the underlying emails between Defendant Barden and Gow Accordingly they cannot be n想??3I v??p?X?TeM e5a p?bZ ed Dr?D?F Oi?Q W?z??R?o KE?.?kj?B ku??ŀU9 hD A?pG i PƗ?g?ܬm o?W2 G?ޱ o.?k F?Xq w?ڒ gz tb Mos Ǵ?s _i Bb KA Y2 e??o tZ ª_?H??qA kgF0?Ӗ lbz u?N kh aa 8L T?,sF 8z?O2ᵨ w?Pʽ H?a4 3AT j?d s?d??x 8D T?C 3w QY?ǵp SXDs L?-yM1 p?x ig?1ң D?jsR?e?v O??y Ԍt l??h J4 tu?Kd0 b4?zFvHa aXd TY A O:?V S?z k?/VK Y?jQ??A VӋQK J?kʢ??:W?i hL p??z?Dz IU 3d Wk 7aNa k?浘 r?1fj HAk M?Wk ŷ?ߞvԒ يn Sqp v?P gd?h Iug?G ե?G qX RW??Q?;z?V k??n N?d o?b 3x Hl??X ۯ?h 嚏?n Yևc WpT A V??k??Ey ta??v Vq?s?fQ Y?k n?/G H?Q bň b?C?y-?I i Tr??X L?b wr??r??e d?_Y F5 v?J l??S VhCP G1MZo Sa ybK n?c S?R p?y Ŏ?g 0J Sfd?A Nm Q?A fLB r?xŕ p?z qM??Y ilv?rD:?5tv??8 r?z ŖL??L uȚ?7 eU?C aj B?Ӓ1A a m?G xy jϬ;?d 8t rx O?r G??L t??D?y趖?p R?!Ab?m?t V?ODNr e?T ޑ?D O??g 8?OrEG L?j ܜ?z?C u8 w?n??V?j 0gH??PA I Lo??L dk?y OA xK D?v?/x xAK a a Ƭ?mb m?Z u?uˇ C?y?x yՐcA?63?x L?p??P 5Z I!h;?l UӉ?0?W _g?m?Sm?I mb?G cch?ߏ I?E?rQ jR k?QJ?l;?nJ Vb5W?N R?F y?z O??m 0?uk j?x??t?Ek(?H LU?f?v??ؤRe Ds x?5DG W?X aW n??r 9Ns?f?i?q?o??U ݞ?X q??R 5e?y?Px X?lZ?IÊ Ɍ6?a bЦ ېU a K?Pl QfA5 g??f?m?Z?I?f եa W??p 4Z mL,ră Cm?D n?f R?K UZ?6 M?ݺ?(Pog?i PM1 5U P𒿓Se Nqw-K q??Uu G?a Xw?pV F?Wk?K Q?o rQ??K d?v_k hģ d?(LT v2 blԃj?Z 5Ef?Ȃ s"e?myb A?vn IY o4 gT 8C Jm Hx?x?Y Z?x O??FD DR k??O ñ?3q?tB8 Xy?Dlh3?o1 f??"ys I 90F?wV aڛ JsF T1?w 1Q Ƥbu M?x z?K r7 p?g1Ǌ uf h4Ajm?g2 Dt?q_?D nW i2 9v y??V V?Ä?j?cΥP??2b qܧ lx Eq N?á FJ gi?T Hub?A?L dx?_ t?H?J I m9 i 4bG N7 hL qnz?dH Ǣ?w I??N L??eP c9bpBɺ y?So K?a pAK?p?R??K?g ɄD??GD r??Gk nb?U vJ eb PT uIZ6?Mڣ bM Y1?z P?w?W v?R?f?t?tS h??g Me??2V S?y?R?Ď?Yjp?d?p Q?K??kFu?d X?Jh3 w?0y i s!?Ѧ?C bW7U?TRE lZ D?鿐9Ay jI S7 eo4O?qi فkGN l?Лl??O DX st n叿??P g??HџK A N?i N?B?fw?ͻZ?w l??c A?C t?U EE?Z?7s ït??H HD??G?R x2 eS S??ed ipMn??Oź dSv,?K G?Fb nm gG?8 jE Kfc 4d?!ʼv eԗ/S ˊqm??D qt0H?k?9 G3mLb X?i V?æ glt X8T Ѝ??I V߆ A o,?tņ 0l Nem??ۋ??k5 r?O 2j A?NS!usu??eL e??G?ݔ Qs?0q rLJ?rAVJ2N??:?r q?ί XQ?l?F??ni Tn ҏ?J 0E պj E2 օB a??bhh?(E8 bՐb?A?X?P F?n g1?xY 쌇T ux m?D c?QB8ǢLB??C İ?u 3?jl 졦O i:?c?du bb V?y m?d c-Y z?S A?J?TA 8q 5p 4u K_Ĕ!ٶ?hϱB Ky zq xc?FC8 AC??j b?E ZG??.b?K ޚ?V b2 _q A?qSV?M iPR1 襾욿 g??f H6ܣ??M?i Z?i?ё B?_?xx UVs?MO9O Lz Qr 6id A?k,Ya gA DB?_ K??T n0 g?x?i?P??HC??u??WG W:O Jp vJw Ꝥ?k r?N q_?y gs IQ?j 4M Z?q L?k GB Qm X?G?q?g P?z?ǜ k?ђl Gk?1_F cgU i jI t?IȈ i e!Ϝ H?N s?qor E??H PO W?ES b?T UEy?!MF?A w3iD?D n?B0 bI q?A G?r IE z??bˁմ?2bK Еt?F ÅT a ky i?rQ Pb?H ac?A!d0L v??h?b g?SV QO s4?l O2Z UF m?d?C?q I_qI k6SoP X??K e?f_ R?NT??K Gs VW P?OV??J jX Ma??z?K CN Q?v gC R?k FJo ZLƔ/M _??gwr 4MTtn K??m Z4E y?g rL Va?v ߏR?m?c Wd?U4 N?Mf?EZv V?P Կ?A?9E??T?D?ixї A zuĲA?TӼ I O?H T?V?n,K?q tLRw QF Ȫ?Dw a rݕ L?aO?kx ыcC riT??Β 綋?PT I?q?k Uȑ 詫ȿ o?O 6HK O.?fU Ij?e I?WQ??ļJ??WR Dr c?n?vI?N u?Ԙ M?GcE?k j?vN?c5?E??s?m s?lc?l?fE c?Y dڌ k?r GP i j.g I i K?ɗ?p Q?Ra?t 7ho0 rG?p ZC?Z O?T?oDk KY ϢKyO 5Mb Dh Io 6xW 6q?ɲvE Qu8Sl??7 ZB??C??Vծ 4FS!?q KJ??TG ay?b LYM m4 vcIc?y HYe?:?a m?ğN?O oN A?N fy?l"8 Q?S?SB?o BZӐ?Zp?Y?o?8?_ cP?7EC YD??ޣN 1g W8 z?F IX??c Z/cW e?q?ȮK ɎG Ir P?B?a?ƒ?ݩde??C UƗ?o wΡ S?t R?ꒃ SP L??ցN c?l tQ D?i ԙa??g KԒh Fs I?o Zm OOY?Z C?DH.AvA dp bB?g7??ů;N R"f cV?L?D?iV E?Z?t 0!MCNI?E??Y 0zMk?i?h s?s FE?r 4A XQ fp t?a r??w Ɇ?P R4 SN?7 biD?Z rC?q a A?kj vhG I m?E8?aMWr?7?V Z?1?ϡhAO?y z??C QR??F9 h?ro?I Z?M f?PO sQ d??Г vd?dg?d??k od?Z ePK FN Kn V氷 i x?DB TQ?u 0ћ Z?Y bT mƗ r??pL??u?OCK cb RI x?N i??jsq8S?wHB I?QE?g?lb6 y?ށ?E?G7J x?ߺ α;6?3?JGw?ϰڷ?ѳ L/?p?շ?Ɂ?s?Լ Wc??h Dƣ??4eç A Mnz?u g?O k9 J?i a?ڔ?Ј:Zoj72Y?c I p6 fS?c?N ɯʐw faR"??W?1?CK w?K?ѽ j?z-H O?s M2 h?d d?h p?ygԊ8?D a N!Չ Ȅ?4?N?kA LH x㰛s9 jP x?N A L5pW?e tW?H y۶ I?w nĘ _K?W?q6r JS QJv X?Y?w Rh Ӿ?W?"g CW?Y?Ӗxt 5v k?q O?L ZS C?H SwQ tk۳T r?_DW?x I ae W??IhZ k8?J?V pMI v?ܮ?p YХנ?Qp Y?Z JiSf r2!?Нpw6 V?m ݱ?Yv 0y Rҩ6 F:?p xc d?J UD.?u SК uޱ?F?uBk x?o0g?m!v??M jF?b Y4 J?ݗ CZE?F Vf-?X?Z i v:p thgI??(W D1?Ҍ Cxi T?Uy A i?X c?Y Y?ٮ I MND ܢ(?P r?m RD HK_W w?B?ڣi o?m e?,a?R鲟 u?ꃤ A?cU?6 lM li sz z??ct 5ݎ i?d nI8 E?o 랟??j Q.g l8 MA E?k h?b t??ٻ TU hc nˍEP Vw m9 Dp yӢ?k 7os??q u_d?lj?z?SJ u9 y?m a t?7b Eoa??M yy bb T?2g?DMB?9,E I cSjY?3ߠ FpV nfU9?lʒ fWE?R??9?v Ѱp s?m nUqhY?,?Vc?w Ƅʖ?A ǀ)s xny rRp?w ɍ?M 9WG ay x?e ɂ?tT ZVk ae Ls bi s?j?HUWf_d?"?3 PQ tl fs dI??N?zk kp?R tױRv7w Vuh 1pTzxRn?!??A b??bZ?wkh?.?C?H t?Dk qۼ ʷ?V EB 1jI CK OEw0 ΞB?c A?Gi Q?a?d c?b PT??k?m?S A u??d0K MLs s?Մk 9i EE t7?M?x5S1Y k?j a M?TN LC I a l?뺤?G?WP?ư?D ȖQ_k?y??aZ 9Y LP w0 iQ wN7n EËvn??O?yY R?ۉ pP?q o2 PU P??u I Xf??fl ع??!ul?Ɏ ѷ?Sæ 蜎M?w?S?EEa G?ԭ uz ҥ4?O V4 n?A j?e S?lz Hpcԋ p?b cS uﶆ e9r l?G I PkP?1 Oe LC ȳws f??jh Nl 5?tc i V?ޢ Cď H?iu?5?z 3W?Ҫ n??r 1?yC v??j rE kX?v w?K?3Sl 6Ԣ?H gnk?o Mj??C p?;ڛV ŠN?y q_ o?E Sc cJ5e gBpXC qB?t3?K?싩?ݯ?u LĈ??Ҹ M?qb l??Y?D 3?_x?yJQ?Nz yK?7 X??w EqdI?ӭ?Ypy!??0 lZ?5 k6?gR xa Ţm0?U v?U Case Document Filed Page rehabilitated by the common interest privilege Thus this field of documents and the common interest claim with i narrowed tO the communications wi th-f ound on and as the remainder of the documents in question have already failed to qualify as protected under the attorney client and agfindy pri.vileges i To assert the C6it rii6ri iriterest privilege the tty blaimirig it pr6t:ecti.dn Tfiust i estfablish i the cto cuments in question are att drrteY client comrnunfba.bions subject to the attorhey"clieht privileg1a i i the pirt i involved hare a common legal interest and ii:j_ the statements fbrwhich protection is sought we re deslgned to fu rther that interest Chevron Corp Danziger F.R.D rs citatiohs omitted To merit any analysis regarding the presence of the attorney-client privilege eht,her the nderlying foi-warded messages must include communications protected by the attorney client privilege or the messages excludingthe forwarded materia.ls mu themselves show some attorney-client communication New York courts applying the common interest rule to civil proceedings ha often looked to federal case law for guidance Egiazaryan Zalmayev F.R.D S.D.N.Y collecting cases Case Document Filed Page As set forth a o:ve the underlying communications that were sent to-9-n tl i-s bat ch fail tQ qualify as protected under t:he attorney-_-cl,ient privileges because Defendant has failed to meet tlJ Pl ciqminance requir ernent and failed to demonstrate that Gow inclusion did not cons titute waiver pursuant to the agency privilege The ails bet een Defendant an i e2q ud i:1J,m the prwa12 tj ed collilunicat tons that include Ba dep anc1 GPw l9l c1 th ms e:s ir1clude coun:sel ot eveh lega1 cc commu nig i i:Oq Je 19,tte prtvi J;;ege.d c,ammunic:ation Accor iin cs t.P eJqp:,j,.1.s fai1 tP m.eet the fir st elemel1.t pf the co ini f;l.res priyii.l,,ege Do,cuments and f!lUSJ be propuq ip tpf;!,ir entirety Docui:nent includes messages between and Unlike the emails including messages between Defendant Barden and Gow the messages between merit an inquiry regarding the presence of a privileged attorney-client communication Case Document Filed Page Defendant swears-represented span ing several years including when the email in question was sent Maxwell Deel Defendant has not produced an affidavit from attesting to this fact or any representation agreement However the communications contained in Defendants in came ra submissions themselves demonstrate an attorney-client relationship existed refe rs to himself on January as primary counseln in the present-tense and with respect to specific ongoing legal matters Accordingly an atior ey-client relationship i established between document also demonstrates it was made within the context of that relationship both topically and chronologically Defe dants affida it establishes her intent that her communication with 265regarding legal advice was to be kept confidential Maxwell Deel The law distinguishes between a common legal defense interest which cloaks related communications in privilege and a common problem to which the privilege does not apply Egiazaryan F.R.D at citing finkelman Klaus WL at N.Y.Sup.Ct Nov nA limited common purpose that necessitates disclosure meets the standard Defendant and llad more than a common prob1ern Case Document Filed Page or a common interest in one anothers vindicati and I rref fe a tficier1tly common purpose that 3harin9 their legal adyice was nec ssarY,to put forth a comm911.defense logistica ly related to furthering t,he ommon interest between De ant Acco,r;din,g1tr document is privileged Documents in.elude messages between hich then forwarded to Defendant Defendant has Maxwell Aff It is not established when those years were or even that the period of time encompassed the communications in question This belief is completely unco.rroborated and no content within the communications tends to show that was acting in a representative capacity for To the contrary the in Case Document Filed Page camera submission with show hi!ll to be acting more likel on own behalf and in his own iqterest discussing Ca:retb L4 ke SeY;!:cl r;al ot:hex e1erne,nts pf the in camera submi sions t:hJ PlJ1i1tJica y,;L o1 tens;ls to df;tIBons trat.e that a Jl Jnt e:re in qpq 1Jct 1:Ji;th at the Qt le i C,9JJWIU,Jli..GaJ J?Jl;S in ewt h.q,q arguap preclttp_ipg 9n a clte.n el ion iR petend ant i i th f:it 9J t.:Ji 242einfp,ft te Fl.h lemen-J o.f a:ttoi ney7 cl,iept attach an 9-oc 265ment crnust be prod,uc eq Docn1JJ1ents and Must Be Produced Each of these documents concerns emails solely between Defendant and As reasoned above Defendant and_ were in a ommon interest relationship for the purposes of these emails However the common interest privilege does not apply to all communications between two parties sharing a common interest a privileged attorney-client communicat.ion must sti Case Document Filed Page be involved Pem-Arn Inc Sunham Home Fashions LLC No CIV 1377JFKRLE WL at S.D.N.Y Oct finding the common interest privilege did not apply where the document in question was not a communication where in the party claiming privilege sought confidential legal advice For example counsel to two parties sharing a common int erest may communicate with one ahother td provide legal advice in furtherance of that interesti id ot two pattles sharing a common intere st may discldse the advice of their counsel in furtherance of their interest Egiazaryah at However the common interest privilege only operates to protect privileges such as the attorhey client privilege that that would otherwise be wai vea by disc1dsute Id These commuhications are mostly mundane exchanges and conta in no indication that there is any underlying communication fromanyattorney even with respect to the few communications that discuss legal issues Defendant has not pled any dther u11derlyirfg privilege applies i Accordingly Defendant has failed to meet her burden and these documents must be produced Docwnents and Are Privileged Documents and are mostly duplicative In the series communications between Barden Defendant Case Document Filed Page and Cohen and between Har,c;len and are forwarded This same series is duplicated in with an additional email at the most recent end o,t tbe q,hain between and Defendant As di CllS ed boyE:t cl i totJiel-c 1ie nt rti!lationships have been estq,Qli he c:l O,,Vr t.,qe fE J.E;v,ant ime ft PE?r;i:oq et Deffentjant and Barden andbetween Cohen of Cohen Gresser LLP continUid as her counsel after a t:Je ben Gi.es ywe Dgol i foi l;q Def en lan has submi tted a firm prof.,j.J.e ShoJing Cc;i.hJID 1f c3 il;tnEf:r Qohen Gresser Maxwe11Decl Ex Cohen is copied on a single Jaffe The cont;ent of th email supports Defendants contentign that Cohen represented her in th IJnJteq States while Bar den represented her interests i;n the UK Accordingly Cohens presence did not aive a:ttorney-:-client privilege Privilege is therefore established to the underlying communications that were ultimately forwarded td Likewise as reasoned above Defendant was in a common interest relationship with with respect to advice relating to privileged Consequently this entire string of communications js Case Document Filed Page Docuroel Must Be Produced Defendants privilege log cites doc ment an ail between Defendant a i as responsive but protected by the common interest privilege This document was not provided for in camera review Accordingly Defendant has failed to meet her burden of establishing the elements of privilege apply and this document must be produced ColnUnioa ti.ons wi and Must Be i,:roduced Documents contain a single email from Defendant to containing a lengthy attachment of a transcript reasoned above Defendant has failed to establish an attorney-client rel tionship Defendant has not pled any information regarding or relating to the communications included in the attachment Therefore no underlying attorney client privilege has been established and the common interest privilege cannot apply These documents must be produced Case Document Filed Page VI Conclusion For the foregoing reasons and as set forth above Plaintiffs motion to compel is granted in part and denied in part Defendant is directed to produce documents as set forth above on or before April This matter being subject to a Protective Order dated March the parties are directed to meet and confer regarding redactions to this Opinion consistent with that Order The parties are further directed to jointly file a proposed redacted version of this Opinion or notify the Court that none are necessary within two weeks of the date of receipt of this Opinion It is so ordered New York NY April
51,230 characters