In Re: Adelphia Communication Corp., No. 1:2005cv09050 - Document 942 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER:97066 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the record should reflect resolution of the following: 1) Defendants Motion for Production of Materials from Prior Litigation (Docket No. 148) is DENIED; 2) Defendant Bank of Americas Motion to Compel Plaintiffs Responses to Interrogatories (Docket No. 807) is DENIED; 3) Bank Defendants Motion to Compel the Production of Documents Related to PricewaterhouseCooperss Restatement Audit Documents (Docket No. 810) is GRANTED; 4) Plaintiffs Motion to C ompel Production of Documents (Docket No. 814) is DENIED, in part, and GRANTED, in part, with certain requests returned to counsel for further deliberation, a) Production of communications between the Bank Defendants and Government agencies relating to Adelphia is GRANTED, in part. Bank Defendants assert that documents exchanged with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) cannot be produced as it would subject them to criminal liability. They fail, however, to demonstrate that all r elevantdocuments are non-public within the definition of the regulations governing OCC documents. Thus, Bank Defendants must produce all public documents and provide a privilege log for all documents it asserts are non-public; b) Production of docume nts in the possession of Bank Defendants consultants. This issue is returned to the Parties for further discussion. Any outstanding dispute should be submitted to the undersigned on or before February 20, 2009; c) Production of documents concerning c ompensation criteria or compensation received by employees in connection with Adelphia or the Rigas Family is DENIED, without prejudice; d) Production of documents generated prior to January 1, 1996, and after June 25, 2002, is DENIED, without prejud ice, provided that documents, regardless of date generated, may be requested if shown to be specifically relevant; e) Production of documents in the possession, custody, or control of outside counsel. The undersigned returned this issue to the Partie s for further discussion. Anyoutstanding dispute should be submitted to the undersigned on or before February 20, 2009; 5) Bank Defendants Motion to Compel the Production of Documents and Preclude the Assertion of Privilege Pursuant to Rule 37 (Docke t No. 806) is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part: a) Production of the Covington Log Documents is DENIED. The Court concludes the entries on this log are protected under the work product doctrine because they were created in contemplation of litig ation; b) Documents identified on the Directors' Log: i) Documents related to the Deloitte Action. The ART has conceded the attorney-client privilege as to these documents has been WAIVED; ii) Documents related to the Prestige Litigation. The Co urt concludes that the attorney-client privilege was WAIVED as to documents created during the time of the fraud because there was no express exception for privileged documents. The motion to compel these documents is GRANTED; iii) Communications wit h the U.S. Attorney. The Court finds there was no waiver of the attorney-client privilege because the ART expressly retained the privilege and produced no privileged documents. The motion to compel these documents is DENIED. So Ordered (Signed by Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis on 2/11/09) (js) Modified on 2/13/2009 (jab).