Keim v. ADF Midatlantic, LLC et al, No. 9:2012cv80577 - Document 331 (S.D. Fla. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER granting 299 Defendants' Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Production of Carrier Subpoena Communications. Signed by Magistrate Judge William Matthewman on 5/30/2019. See attached document for full details. (kza)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Keim v. ADF Midatlantic, LLC et al Doc. 331 UN ITED STA TES D ISTRICT CO UR T SOU TH ERN D ISTR ICT O F FLORID A CASE N O.12-CV-80577-M ARRA/M ATTHEW M AN BRIAN K EIM ,an individual,on behalfof himselfand al1otherssimilarly situated, Plaintiff, FILED BY D.C . MAt 32 2019 ANGELA E.NOBLE CLERK U S DISI CQ A DF M ID A TLA NTIC,LLC,a foreign corporation,eta1., sao.oF/uk.-w.RB. Defendants. O RD ER G R ANTIN G D EFEN DA N TS'M O TIO N TO C O M PEL PLA INTIFF'S PRODUCTION OF CARRIER SUBPOENA CO M M UNICATIO NS lDE 2991 TH IS CA USE is before the Coul't upon D efendants,A D F M idatlantic,Inc,A m erican Huts,lnc.,ADF Pizza1,LLC,ADF PA,LLC,and Pizza Hut,lnc.'s(tr efendants'')M otion to CompelPlaintiffsProduction ofCarrierSubpoenaCommunicationsgDE 2994.Thismatlerwas referred to the undersigned upon an Orderreferring alldiscovery mattersto the undersigned for appropriatedisposition.SeeDE 65.PlaintiffBrian Keim (dtplaintiff'')hasfiled aResponse (DE 301j,and DefendantshavefiledaReply.gDE 3021.TheCourtheld ahearing on theM oticm on M ay 9,2019.The Courthas also carefully conducted an in cam era review ofnum erous em ails betw een Plaintiff's counsel and counsel for the non-party telephone carriers regarding the subpoenasto the telephone carriersthatare atissue in M otion to Com pel.The m atter is now ripe forreview . 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1. BA CK GR O U N D This discovery dispute involves Defendants' demand that Plaintiff produce to Defendants Plaintiff s counsel's em ail com m unications with counsel for the non-party telephone carriers AT&T,Sprint,US Cellular,Verizon,andT-M obile('tthecarriers'')regardingthesubpoenasthat Plaintiff had issued to various phone carriers to identify subscribers and custom ary users ofthe cellphone num bers at issue in this case.Plaintiff issued his tirst set of subpoenas to telephone carriers on December 19, 2018,seeking inform ation pertaining to 12,465 phone nllm bers, approximately 600 fewernumbersthan alleged intheclass.gDE 273-1.1.On February 7,2019, Plaintiffissued a second setofsubpoenas to the caniers,replacing the first setof subpoenas and fixing errorsin thefirstsetand addressing thecarriers'objections.gDE 280-11.The amended subpoenassoughtinform ation pertaining to few erthan 12,600 phone num bers,approxim ately 500 fewernum bersthan alleged in the class. DefendantsallegethatPlaintiffscounselhashadtoengageinm ultipleconferralswithcounsel for the subpoenaed non-parties regarding the scope of the subpoenas to the telephone caniers. Because those conferrals have resulted in the modification and narrowing of the subpoenas, D efendants allege thatthey should be perm itted to review the em ails in order to Stevaluate the natureofwhetherand to whatextentthecarrierswillproduceinformation.''gDE 299,pg.2).ln response,Plaintiffclaimshehasalready producedtoDefendantsal1carrierobjectionsandclass data thatPlaintiffhas received from the caniers and argues thatthe comm unications between Plaintiff's counseland counselfor the caniers are protected by the w ork-productprivilege. gDE 301,pg.1j. 2 II. M O TIO N TO C O M PEL .RE SPON SE.A ND R EPLY a. D efendants'M otion lntheirMotiongDE 299),DefendantsasktheCourttoorderPlaintifftoproducetoDefendants the carrier com m unications because the com m unications pertain to three key issues of ascertainability and commonality:1)whethercarriersretain subscriberdata dating to 2011,2) whethercaniersretain datapertaining to ûsusers'',and 3)thefeasibility ofobtaining thedatato excise subscriber-forwarded numbers.(DE 299,pg.21.Specifically,Defendants are seeking inform ation pertaining to Plaintiff s definition of the term ifuser'' provided to A T& T, and explanationsasto why hundredsofnum berssoughtby Plaintiffw erenotprovided by the carriers. D efendants argue that the Court has a continuing obligation to m onitor class actions and to decertify the class if necessary,and the Courtcannot accom plish this w ithoutproduction of the caniercommunications.gDE 299,pg.51.Thecarriercommunicationsareessentialtodemonstrate Plaintiff's definition of user,and to supportPlaintiff's explanations of delay and difticulties on behalf ofthe carriers.1d.D efendants also argue thatthey are unable to properly challenge class m em bership w ithoutthe com m unications,because the com m unications have m oditied the scope of the subpoenas and provide contextto the subpoena responses.gDE 299,pg.6q.Finally, DefendantsarguethatRule26(e)(1)imposeson Plaintiffacontinuing obligation to supplement hisdiscovery disclosuresin atimely manner.(DE 299,pg.6j.Defendantsclaim thatsincethey have issued Request for Production 39 to Plaintiff,w hich seeks çsall docum ents obtained from third-partiesrelating to this Action,''Plaintiffm ustproduce the com m unications. b. PlaintifpsR esponse lnPlaintiffsResponsegDE 3011,Plaintiffarguesthathehasshareda11objectionsandcalling recordshehasreceived from thetelephonecanierswith Defendants (DE 301,pg.31and that 3 Plaintiff s counsels'em ailcom m unications with the carriers are protected by the work-product privilege. gDE 301, pg. 11. Plaintiff also refutes Defendants' contention that the email com m unications are third party docum ents as requested by Defendants in their Request for Production #39 and arguesthateven iftheemailsweresubjectto thepriordiscovery requests datingbackto2012,Plaintiffshouldnotbelimitedinhiscapacitytoobjecttothisproduction.Id. Plaintiff claim s that the em ails constitute opinion w ork product because the em ails retlect Plaintiffscounsel'smentalimpressions,conclusions,opinions,orlegaltheories.gDE 301,pg.4). c. D efendants'R eply Defendantsfiled a Reply atD E 302,in w hich D efendantsaddressPlaintiff'sassertion thatthe em ailsareprotected work product.D efendantsm aintain thatPlaintiffhasfailed to m eethisburden ofdem onstrating thatthe w ork-productprivilege applies to the em ails.Defendants pointoutthat em ails are not com parable to w itness interview s or notes but instead contain m odifications to subpoenas,whicharepublicmattersthattheCourtmustoverseeandapprove.gDE 302,pg.41. Defendantsfirstargue thatbecause FederalRule ofCivilProcedure 45(a)(4)requirespreservice notice of a subpoena to a1l parties,com m unications w ith a third party that effectuate changes in the subpoena should require notice to all parties. Second, D efendants argue that Plaintiff sassertion ofthe w ork-productprivilege w ould im properly renderthecarriers'em ails as w ork-product.D efendants also argue that,even ifthe em ails are w ork product,the work-product protection is waived w hen protected m aterials are tûdisclosed in a w ay thatsubstantially increases the opportunity forpotentialadversariesto obtain the information.''(DE 302,pg.41.Finally, D efendants assertthatwithoutthe inform ation contained in the com m unications,D efendants are unabletoinquireintothemissingdatafrom tsthousandsofclassmembers.''(DE 302,pg.61. 4 111. IN CW ATFD R EVIEW Atthe M ay 9,2019 hearing,the Courtordered the ex parte subm ission to the Courtfor in cam era review of the em ails betw een Plaintifps counseland counsel for the telephone carriers regarding the subpoenasto thetelephone carriersthatare atissue in M otion to Com pel.The Court took this step to ensure thatitwas fully inform ed and m ade aw are ofthe contentofthe em ails at issue in the pending m otion.The Courtdirected Plaintiff to subm itthe em ails at issue.Plaintiff com plied and subm itted the em ailson M onday,M ay 13,2019.The Courthascarefully review ed the em ailsw hich are atthe centerofthis discovery dispute. IV . A NA LY SIS A . W ork-productD octrine Plaintiffargues thatthe w ithheld em ails are protected by the w ork-productdoctrine.The Courtnotesthatthe only privilege Plaintiffhasasserted in the instantdispute isthe w ork-product privilege. A s this is a federal diversity action, federal law governs work-productdoctrine issues.Guarantee Ins. Heyernan Ins. Brokers, Inc.,No. 13-2388I-CIV, 2014 W L 5305581,at*2 (S.D.Fla.Oct.15,2014), .Sun CapitalPàrtners,Inc.v.Twin Cï/y FireIns.Co., No.12-81397-ClV,2015 W L 9257019,at*3 (S.D.Fla.Dec.18,2015).FederalRule ofCivil Procedtlre26(b)(3),whichsetsforththework-productdoctrine,statesinrelevantpart: (A)DocumentsandTangibleThings.Ordinarily,apartymaynotdiscoverdocumentsand tangible thingsthatareprepared in anticipation oflitigation orfortrialby orforanother party orits representative (including the otherparty's attorney,consultant,surety, indemnitor,insurer,oragent).But,subjectto Rule 26(b)(4),thosematerialsmay be discovered if: 1.They areotherwisediscoverableunderRule26(b)(1), 'and 2.The party showsthatithassubstantialneed forthem aterialsto prepare its case and calm ot, without undue hardship,obtain their substantial equivalentby otherm eans. (B)ProtectionAgainstDisclosure.Ifthecourtordersdiscovery ofthosematerials,itmust protectagainstthe disclosure ofthe m entalim pressions,conclusions,opinions,orlegal theories ofa party's attorney orotherrepresentative concerning the litigation. 5 Fed.R.Civ.P.26(b)(3). tc-f'he w ork productdoctrine protectsfrom disclosure m aterials prepared in anticipation of litigationbyorforapartyorthatparty'srepresentative(includingitsattorneyl.''AutoOwnerslns. Co.,135F.R.D.at201(citingInreGrandlury Proceedings,601F.2d 162,171(5thCir.1979). , Fed.R.Civ.P.26(b)(3)).The doctrine protects kûwritten statements,private memoranda and personalrecollectionsprepared or form ed by an adverse party's counselin the course ofhis legal duties.''Hickman v.Taylor,329U.S.495,510(1947).Courtsgenerallyagreethatwork product protection should be determ ined on a case-by-case basis.See Auto O wacr-çlns.Co.,135 F.R .D .at 202(citationsomittedl;PeteRinaldi' sFastFoods,Inc.v.GreatAmer.Ins.Cos.,123F.R.D.198, 202(M .D.N.C.1998), .Chambersv.AllstateIns.Co.,206F.R.D.579,585(S.D.W .Va.2002)). Rule 26(b)(3) establishes two tiers of protection: first, work product prepared in anticipation oflitigation by an attorney or heragentis discoverable only upon a show ing ofneed and hardship' , and second, iscore'' or fsopinion''w ork productthat encom passes the Slm ental im pressions,conclusions,opinion,legaltheories of an attorney or other representative ofa party concerning the litigation''is ksgenerally afforded near absolute protection from discovery.''Kahn v.United States,No.13-24366-C1V,2015W L 4112081,at*4 (S.D.Fla.July 8,2015)(citingIn reCendantCorp.Sec.Litig.,343F.3d658(3dCir.2003)(citingFed.R.Civ.P.26(b)(3)andInre FordMotorCo.,110F.3d954,962n.7(3dCir.1997)). B. W hether the Telephone C arrier C om m unications are Protected bv W orkProductPrivileae This case concerns w hether,in a class action proceeding,em ails betw een a plaintiff s attorneysandtheattonzeysofnon-party anddisinterested witnesses(carriers)whosedocuments have been subpoenaed are protected under the opinion w ork-product privilege.A lthough this 6 appearsto bean issueoffirstimpression in thiscircuit,theHonorable Colleen M cM ahon,United StatesDistrictJudge,consideredsimilarcircumstancesin Ricoh Co.v.AerojlexInc.,219F.R.D. 66,67(S.D.N.Y.2003).Inthatcase,JudgeM cMahonfoundthattheemailsbetweenanemployee of the subpoenaed non-party and counselfor defendants ultim ately fellinto tw o categories.The first category included em ails that w ere sent by the non-party to defendants' counsel;and the second category included em ails thatwere sentby defendants'counselto the non-party. Judge M cM ahon determ ined thatthe tirstcategory ofdocum ents,em ails sentby the non- partytodefendants'counsel,werenotprotectedbythework-productprivilegebecausethereisno confidentialrelationship between the senders (the subpoenaed non-parties) and the recipient (defendants'counsel).Ricoh,219 F.R.D.at69.Asto thesecondcategory ofdocuments,Judge M cM ahon found thatsom e ofthe em ailssentby defendants'counselto the subpoenaed non-party were potentially protected w ork productto the extentthatSûthe e-m ails retlect counsel's strategy tbr establishing an affirm ative defense as (tojDefendantsclaim.''l161.at70.However,Judge M cM ahon detennined thatw hetherthe em ailscontained w ork productw asa m ootissue,because detkndants'counselùçwaived the privilege by sharing his views orquestions with Daninger,an em ployee ofa non-pal'ty w itness.''1d. The CourtfindsJudge M cM ahon's logic persuasive.A sin Ricoh,the em ails in the instant case betw een counsel for the telephone carriers and Plaintiff's counsel ultim ately fall into tw o categories:first,em ails that were sent by various counselfor the carriers at issue to Plaintiff s counsel,K eith Keogh and A m y W ells;and second,em ailsthatw ere sentby Plaintiff s counselto counselforthe caniers.The Courtw illnow analyze the tw o categories ofdocum ents atissue in thiscase. 1JudgeM cM ahonfurtherstated:itIhavenow ay ofknowing whetherthe e-m ailscontain work product,sinceno one hasseen fitto send them to m e forinspectionx''Ricoh,2 l9 F.R.D.at70. C. W hether the Em ails Sent by the C arriers' C ounsel to Plaintifps counsel are Protected W ork Product A s in Ricoh, em ails sent by the carriers' counsel to Plaintifp s counsel in this case are sim ply notprotected by the work-productprivilege because there is no confidentialrelationship between thesenders(counselforthecarriers)andtherecipient(Plaintiffscounsel).Althougha confidentialrelationship existswhere the non-party is,for example,a consultantretained by a party oritslawyerand broughtw ithin theprivilege asan agentofthe attorney orparty,the carriers areneitherpartiestothisactionnordotheyhaveany interestintheaction.RicohCo.v.Aerojlex lnc.,219 F.R.D.66,69 (S.D.N.Y.2003)(citing S.C.D.C.Envt' l,L.C.v.New York Marine dr G eneral lns. Co.,N o. 96 Civ. 6033, 1998 W L 614478, 1998 U .S. Dist. LEX IS 8808 (S.D.N.Y.1998)(disclosureofworkproducttooutsidecontractorsdidnotwaiveprotectionwhere contractors were either related com panies to plaintiff or acted as agent for plaintiff in the litigationl;Garrettv.MetropolitanLfeIns.Co.,etal.,No.95Civ.2406,1996W L 325725,1996 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 8054 (S.D.N.Y.June 11,1996))(0utsideconsulting firm wasactingasagentof defendant's attorney w hen consultant's reports w ere generated under the direction and controlof defense counsel). ltisastretch worthy ofaM ajorLeagueBaseballfsrstbaseman tbrPlaintiffto arguethat correspondence from counsel for non-party, disinterested, subpoenaed telephone caniers to Plaintiff s counselare covered by work-productprotection.The w ork-product doctrine does not extend so far atield.Thus,the em ails sent by counselfor the subpoenaed telephone carriers to Plaintiff'scobm selin this case are sim ply notprotected by the w ork productprivilege.Therefore, they shallbeproduced by Plaintiffto Defendants. 8 D. W hether Plaintifps C ounsel's Em ails to C ounselfor the Carriers is W ork ProductPursuanttoRule26(b) The Court m ust next consider the second category of docum ents, that is, Plaintiff s counsel'sem ailsto counselfor the caniers.A fter reviewing the disputed em ails in camera,on an exparte basis,the Courtisvery reluctantto find thatthe em ails are w ork productatall.The tenor and purpose ofthe emailsare in referenceto publicly filed and issued subpoenasin thiscase.In Ricoh,although Judge M cM ahon found thatsom e ofthe em ailssentby defendants'counselto the subpoenaed non-party were potentially protected w ork product to the extent that Stthe e-m ails retlectcounsel'sstrategy forestablishing an affirmativedefenseasgtolDefendantsclaim,''she also stated thatshe had no way ofknow ing ifthey w ere protected work productsince they had not been m ade available to her for review .1d. at 70. In this case, however,the undersigned has carefully review ed the disputed em ails.ltis clearthatthe em ails atissue in this case solely refer to the m odification,scope,and execution ofthe subpoenasissued to the non-party carriers.M any of the em ails contain counsels' argum ents and thoughts on the scope of the subpoena,explain discrepanciesregarding responsesto the subpoena,ordefine term sused in the subpoena.How ever, they are nottypical w ork product.The com m unications by Plaintiff's counsel are not m ade to Plaintiff'sow n expertoragent,butratherto a third-party who hasno involvem entin the case other than to respond to a law fully issued subpoena. The em ailsatissue are directly relevantto the scope ofthe subpoenas sentto the caniers, and indeed the em ails seem to m odify the subpoenas via the conferral betw een the counsel specified in the em ails.The Courtnotes itsongoing duty to m onitorthis classaction case.K eim v. ADF MidAtlantic,LLC,328F.R.D.668(S.D.Fla.2018)(quotingManno v.HealthcareRevenue Recovery,LLC,289F.R.D.674,695 (S.D.Fla.2013)), .Espinoza v.GalardiS.Enterprises,No. 14-21244,2016W L 127586,at*11(S.D.Fla.Jan.11,2016).AllowingPlaintiffto maintainhis 9 work-productprivilegewould denyD efendantsim portantinformation pertainingtothenarrowing ofthe scope ofthe subpoenats) and production by the carriers in response to the narrowed subpoenats).ItwouldalsoundenninetheCourt'sabilitytomonitorthesubpoenastothecarriers oreffectively evaluate the m eritsofPlaintiffssubpoena efforts. In sum,preventing the production ofthese em ails,which do notconstitute work product, would simply be unfairto Defendants.Defendantshave a strong interestin ensuring the validity and reliability of the docum ents subpoenaed by Plaintiff from the non-parties, who are disinterested telephone carriers. Thus, all of Plaintifps counsel's em ail com m unication w ith telephone caniers A T& T,Sprint,U S Cellular,Verizon,and T-M obile regarding the subpoenas thatPlaintiff had issued to various phone carriersto identify subscribers and custom ary users of the cellphone num bers atissue in thiscase shallbe produced to D efendants. E. Production of the Em ails is R equired Even A ssum ing A rguendo that Plaintiff has A sserted a V alid C laim ofW ork Product Although the Courtbelievesthatthe em ailsatissue sim ply do notconstitute w ork product atallin thiscase,the issue,like in Ricoh,ism oot.Thisisso becauseto the extentPlaintiffargues theemailsconstitutefactworkproduct,Defendantshaveestablished 1)thattheemailsarerelevant andproportionaltotheneedsofthiscase,2)thatDefendantshavesubstantialneed fortheemails andan inabilitytoobtainthematerialsortheirsubstantialequivalentbyothermeans,and 3)that Plaintiff's counsel has w aived w ork-productprivilege by sharing any allegedly protected w ork productw ith counselforthe subpoenaed non-parties.Thus,even ifthe em ails arguably constitute factw ork product,they stillm ustbe produced. A s explained above,the Courtfinds that the em ails are proportionaland relevantto the needsOfthiscasepursuanttoRule26(b)(1).Defendantshavefurtherestablishedasubstantialneed and an inability to obtain the m aterialsortheir substantialequivalentby otherm eans.Defendants 10 represented atthe hearing thatthey have repeatedly asked Plaintiff scounselhow the tenn lduser'' wasdefined in the subpoenas,and how Plaintiffaccountsfornumericaldiscrepanciesregarding the phone num bers, and D efendants assertthat they have received no sufficient response from Plaintiff The em ailsappearto m odify the scope ofthe subpoenasand contain relevantinfonnation, including Plaintiff's definition ofthe term Ctu ser,''which im pacts the carriers'production.Justas PlaintiffisrequiredunderFederalRuleofCivilProceduze45(a)(4)toprovidepre-servicenotice of a subpoena to allparties,so too isPlaintiffrequired to provide Plaintiffs com m unications to the non-parties w hich narrow orrefine the scope ofthe subpoenas.Therefore,even ifthe Court weretofindthatsomeofthe emailsconstitutefactworkproductasPlaintiffasserts(which the Courtdoesnot),theCourtfindsthatDefendantsarenonethelessentitled to theproduction oîa11 ofthose em ailsbecauseD efendantshavedem onstrated a substantialneed and an inability to obtain the m aterialsortheir substantialequivalentby otherm eans,Kehle,2018 W L 2435176,at*7,and because Plaintiffhasw aived any w ork productprotection. AstoPlaintiffsargumentthattheemailsconstituteopinionworkproduct,theCourtrejects thisargum ent.The Courtfindsthatno such Opinion w ork productexistsfora11Ofthe reasonsstated in thisOrder.Further,even ifsome ofthe emailsarguably constituted opinion work product,the CourtfindsthatPlaintiffwaived any possible w ork-productprivilege as to inform ation contained in the em ails by Plaintiff s counsel's voluntary dissem ination of the em ails to the telephone canier's counsel and discussion of the contents of the em ails w ith non-party counsel for the caniers. The carriers do notshare a com m on interest in the case w ith Plaintiff,and indeed the carriers appearto be adversarial,especially considering Plaintiff's contested m otions to com pel certainnon-partiesto comply with subpoenas.(DE 288,DE 3061.Plaintiffandhiscounselcould not have reasonably expected that any inform ation contained in Plaintiff's counsel's em ails to 11 counsel for the carriers would be m aintained as secret against Defendants in this litigation. Therefore,the Courttinds thateven if Plaintiff had shom a that the em ails sent from Plaintiff's counselto thecarrierscontained opinion work product(whichhedid not),Plaintiffwaived any claim of work product protection w ith regards to em ails w hen it voluntarily sent the em ails to counsel for the disinterested,non-party telephone caniers.See D avis v. United States,NO.08- 81447-C1V,2010W L 11504342,at*5(S.D.Fla.Feb.25s2010)(citingRicohCo.L/J,219F.R.D. at70). V. C O N CLU SIO N ln lightof the foregoing,itis ORDERED thatDefendants'M otion to Compel Plaintiff's ProductionofCanierSubpoenaCommunicationsgDE 299)isGRANTED.Plaintiffisorderedto produce to D efendant,w ithin tive days ofthe date ofthis Order,allofPlaintiff's counsel'sem ail com m unications with telephone carriers A T& T, Sprint, U S Cellular, V erizon, and T-M obile regarding the subpoenasthatPlaintiffhad issued to various phone carriers to identify subscribers and custom ary usersofthe cellphone nlzm bers atissue in thiscase. D O N E and O R DE RED in Cham bers atW estPalm Beach,Palm Beach C ounty,Florida,this 3ohe day ofM ay,2019. U% = W ILLIAM M A T EW M A N UN ITED STATE S M A G ISTR ATE JUD G E 12
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
