Magistrate Judge Nathaniel Fox
Leeds, Morelli and Brown, and their law firm (movants) represented 48 peoplea putative subclass in plaintiffs’ lawsuitwho opted out of a class action in Colorado. Movants sought a protective order barring plaintiffs’ discovery of privileged and/or confidential information about their representation. Claiming the subclass included members from Colorado, Georgia and New Jersey, movants argued that plaintiffs could neither waive the privilege belonging to, nor consent to disclosure of confidential information on behalf of, their absent former clients. The court denied movants a protective order, noting their privilege log did not satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 and Local Civil Rule 26.2. It did not describe in any manner, without revealing the information protected, the nature of the documents or communications withheld. Finding it unclearin light of the Second Circuit’s ruling in Johnson v. Nextel Communicationswhy the movants invoked Colorado, Georgia and New Jersey statutes in their privilege log, the court observed that movants’ memorandum of law failed to address what authority, if any, supported their claim that Colorado, Georgia and New Jersey law should govern the privilege in the suit.
