In our last update, we discussed Magistrate Judge Marian W. Payson’s decision of a motion to compel in Narayanan v. Sutherland Global Holdings, No. 15-CV-6165T, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12358 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2018), which required an analysis of what happens to attorney-client privilege when there is a third-party consultant involved in the communications, Sharon Porcellio, “Decision Tackles Privilege Issues When Third-Party Consultant Is Involved,” N.Y.L.J., April 26, 2018. Before Judge Payson’s decision, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment in his favor on all pending claims and counterclaims. The defendant moved for partial summary judgment seeking to dismiss two of the plaintiff’s claims and granting its counterclaim for breach of fiduciary duty. After Judge Payson’s ruling, the court permitted additional briefing by the parties.

U.S. Senior District Judge Michael A. Telesca then had more than 10 briefs and supplemental letter briefs and multiple statements and counter-statements of fact and other submissions from the two parties to decide the pending summary judgment motions. He issued a lengthy and detailed opinion in Narayanan v. Sutherland Global Holdings, No. 15-CV-6165T, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82629, at *1 (W.D.N.Y. May 16, 2018), disposing of the case in its entirety at the summary judgment stage.