Consorzio del Prosciutto di San Daniele v. Daniele, Inc., No. 1:2007cv00039 - Document 121 (D.R.I. 2010)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER denying and dismissing 118 Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision and affirming 114 Order granting Motion to Clarify. So Ordered by Chief Judge Mary M. Lisi on 6/1/2010. (Duhamel, John)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND CONSORZIO DEL PROSCIUTTO DI SAN DANIELE, Plaintiff v. C.A. No. 07-039ML DANIELE, INC., Defendant OPINION AND ORDER Mary M. Lisi, Chief United States District Court Judge. The defendant, Daniele, Inc. a magistrate Consorzio del judge's order Prosciutto ("Daniele"), has appealed from granting di the San Daniele motion (the by plaintiff "Consorzio") to clarify a prior court order by the magistrate regarding certain discovery motions. For the reasons stated below, the appeal is DENIED and the magistrate judge's order is AFFIRMED. I. Background The Consorzio is a consortium of prosciutto producers in San Daniele del Friuli, Italyl. Daniele is a Rhode Island corporation that began producing and distributing prosciutto and other meat products in the 1970s under the name "Daniele Prosciutto, Inc." and using the trademark DANIELE. After the United States Government removed a 30 -year ban on the importation of pork products from Prosciutto is a type of dry-cured ham. San Daniele is one of several Italian regions famous for its prosciutto. Italy in the early 1990s, the Consorzio obtained u.s. a registration of its certification mark PROSCIUTTO DI SAN DANIELE SD and resumed sales of San Daniele prosciutto in the United States. Around that time, Daniele issued a marketing brochure making certain statements regarding its locally produced prosciutto and the parties became engaged in a trademark dispute. The Consorzio alleges that Daniele attempted to create a false impression that it was affiliated with the Consorzio and that Daniele's prosciutto was approved by the Consorzio and equal to the prosciutto produced in San Daniele, Italy. Complaint' 17. The gravamen of the Consorzio's complaint is that Daniele uses its DANIELE trademark to "trade on the name and good will of San Daniele and to create confusion between prosciutto." Id. its 'Daniele Prosciutto' and San Daniele , 21. The parties entered into an initial settlement agreement in August 2003 and, after Daniele filed a lawsuit in Rhode Island state court to have the settlement nullified, the parties signed a new settlement Agreement"). agreement on March 25, 2005 (the "Settlement On January 29, 2007, the Consorzio filed a complaint (the "Complaint") in this Court for (Count I) Breach of Contract; (Count II) False Designation of Origin; and (Count III) Trademark Infringement. (Doc. # 1). alleges Daniele that Settlement Agreement. has With respect to Count I, the Consorzio breached Since then, 2 certain provisions of the the parties have engaged in protracted and often contentious discovery proceedings. II. Procedural History On March 14, 2008, the Consorzio filed a Answers to Interrogatories" . (Doc. # 38) Request for Production of Documents" UDiscovery Motions"). On March 25, and a (Doc. 2008, pretrial conference with the parties. UMotion to Compel UMotion to Compel # 39) (together, the this Court conducted a On April 11, 2008, the Court issued a Pretrial Order, permitting Daniele to file a motion for summary judgment with respect to Count I of the complaint. 40) . The Pretrial Order also states that "[u] ntil the (Doc. # Court resolves said motion for summary judgment, further discovery shall be and hereby is stayed and D~fendant need not respond presently to [the Discovery Motions] ." The parties proceeded with their filings relative to Daniele's summary judgment motion and the Court conducted a hearing on the motion on September 15, 2008, at which time Daniele's motion for summary judgment on Count I of the Complaint was denied. On the same date, the Court referred the pending Discovery motions to Magistrate Judge Martin. On September 29, 2008, in the absence of any objection by Daniele, the magistrate judge issued a text order (the "Text Order") granting both Discovery Motions. 2 On October 8, 2 The entry on the CM/ECF docket reads as follows: TEXT ORDER granting no objection having been filed 38 Motion to Compel i granting 39 Motion to Compel. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge David L. Martin on 9/29/08. (Saucier, Martha) (Entered: 3 2008, the Court entered an order (1) denying Daniele's motion for summary judgment; (2) continuing the stay of discovery on Counts II and III of the Complaint; and (3) setting the close of discovery relevant to Count I of the Complaint for March 15, 2009. (Doc.# 49) . Also on October 8, 2008, Daniele filed a "Motion for Reconsideration" of the magistrate judge's Text Order, stating that it had not filed an objection to the Consorzio's motions to compel because the "discovery in question. . relates to Counts II and III" which had been stayed by this Court. (Doc.# 50). After a hearing on November 6, 2008, the magistrate judge afforded Daniele a further opportunity to support its argument that certain of the interrogatories and requests for production did not pertain to Count I. \\In all other respects," the Discovery Motions were denied and the magistrate judge ordered Daniele to comply with the Consorzio's discovery requests interrogatories and documents. regarding the remaining Order from November 7, 2008 (Doc.# 55) . Daniele then filed an additional memorandum on November 12, 2008, advancing detailed arguments respect with interrogatories and documents in question. to the (Doc.# 56). Neither this memorandum nor Daniele's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc.# 50) asserted attorney-client privilege 09/29/2008) 4 as grounds for refusing to comply with the Consorzio's discovery requests. On November 17, 2008, Daniele also filed an appeal with this Court of "the portion of the [magistrate judge's order finding that defendant waived the ~ovember discovery 7, 2008] objections asserted to certain interrogatories and requests for production propounded by [the Consorzio]." (Doc.# 57). In its supporting memorandum, Daniele asserted that the order "includes a requirement that [Daniele] turn over documents that indisputably are subject to the attorney-client privilege." Mem. at 2. (Doc.# 57, Attachment Daniele also pointed out that the magistrate judge's Text 1). Order granting the Discovery Motions was entered prior to this Court's order continuing the stay of discovery for Counts II and III and setting a new deadline for discovery related to Count I. Id. at Daniele 4. then proceeded to specify which of the interrogatories and requested documents it considered privileged. Daniele also noted that it's initial objections to certain discovery requests were based on the attorney-client privilege. 3 On November 18, 2008, the magistrate judge conducted a hearing regarding motions. Daniele's additional arguments anent the Discovery The following day, the magistrate judge issued an order granting the Discovery motions with respect to interrogatory No. 16 and document requests Nos. 11, 38, and 41. The Discovery Motions 3 It appears undisputed, however, that Daniele failed to provide a privilege log with respect to the requested information. 5 were denied with respect to interrogatory No. 10 and document request Nos. 8, 9, 11, 23, 26, 27, and 28. On December 8, 2008, this Court denied Daniele's appeal from the magistrate judge's November 7, 2008 order. (Doc.# 63). Following this denial, the parties proceeded with their discovery which was extended to July 31, 2009. (Text Order February 5, 2009). Daniele filed its own discovery motions on May 8, 2009 (Doc.## 69, 70); which the magistrate judge granted, in part, and denied, in part, on June 11, 2009 (Doc.## 76, 77); and Daniele appealed the magistrate judge's decision on June 18, 2009 (Doc. # 78) ; which this Court denied on July 9, 2009 (Doc.# 82) . On September sanctions against 16, 2009, Daniele the in Consorzio connection filed with a the motion for Consorzio's deposition of I. Stephen Samuels ("Mr. Samuels") who represented Daniele in negotiations of the Settlement Agreement. (Doc.# 87). The Consorzio alleged that Mr. Samuels asserted the attorney-client privilege and refused to answer questions regarding documents which Daniele had produced as result of court orders. advise Mr. When asked to Samuels that privilege regarding these documents had been waived, Daniele's counsel refused, asserting that waiver of the privilege had not been voluntary because the documents were produced pursuant to a court order. The Consorzio contended that counsel's refusal amounted to a violation of the September 29, 2008 Text Order (see note 2 herein) and warranted sanctions. 6 On December 1, 2009, the magistrate judge denied the Consorzio's motion for sanctions, on the grounds that "most courts which have considered the question have concluded that a party does not waive a claim of attorney-client privilege by complying with an order to produce documents. Second, this Court has not explicitly ruled that Daniele has waived the attorney-client privilege with respect to the documents produced." Order at 2 (Doc. # 93). The order noted, however, that "to the extent that [Daniele's] Motion for Reconsideration may have sought to prevent the production of potentially privileged documents, the motion was denied." 6. rd. at The Consorzio promptly appealed the magistrate judge's order, (Doc. # 94) and this Court denied and dismissed the appeal on January 28, 2010, noting that "this latest skirmish could have been avoided had counsel simply communicated with each other before the deposition of Attorney Samuels." Memorandum and Order at 1 (Doc.# 98) On February 18, 2010, the Consorzio requested a clarification of the Text Order "to make explicit that, for purposes of this litigation, Daniele has waived its privilege with respect to the documents which the Court ordered to be produced in that Order." Consorzio Mem. "Daniele had at 1 failed (Doc. # 103). to The Consorzio contended that establish or had waived its claim to attorney-client privilege by not producing the required privilege log." rd. at 2. The Consorzio also suggested that, with respect to 7 the Text Order, requiring the privilege has U[t]he only reasonable way to interpret an order production of been lost." privileged Id. at 6. documents is that the Daniele obj ected to the Consorzio's motion for clarification, stating that the December I, 2009 order denying the Consorzio's motion for sanctions made it uabundantly clear" that the Text Order udid not constitute a finding of waiver of Daniele'S asserted attorney-client privilege by the Court." Daniele'S Obj. On March 19, 2010, (Doc.# 109). the magistrate judge issued an order granting the Consorzio's motion for clarification. 114). Order (Doc.# The magistrate judge agreed with the Consorzio that an order requiring the production of privileged documents implies that the privilege has been lost. He also pointed out that Daniele failed to file an opposition to the motions to compel and that, in seeking a reconsideration of the Text Order, Daniele's argument was limited to asserting that the requested documents related only to Counts II and III, which had been stayed. Id. at 5 n.1. On April 2, 2010, Daniele filed an appeal of the magistrate judge's order granting clarification of the Text Order, which is now before this Court. Daniele asserts that (1) the Text Order was uperfectly clear and no clarification is clarification was necessary;" uinconsistent and contrary to" (2) the the magistrate judge's order denying the Consorzio's motion for sanctions; and (3) uunder the unique circumstances of this case," Daniele's failure to 8 object to the Consorzio's motion to compel did not consist a knowing waiver of the attorney-client privilege. at 1 (Doc.# 118). Notice of Appeal In response, the Consorzio maintains that the Text Order, while not explicit on this issue, necessarily implied that Daniele, by failing to respond to the motion to compel, waived its privilege. Standard of Review In an appeal from a magistrate judge's order on nondisposi tive matters, "[t]he district judge in the case must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law." "A determination is evidence to support 'clearly erroneous' it, the court, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 (a). when, after although there is reviewing all the evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that the magistrate judge made a mistake." Harvard Pilgrim Health Care of New England v. Thompson, 318 F.Supp.2d I, 6 (D.R.I. 2004) (citing United States v. u.s. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395, 68 S.Ct. 525, 92 L. Ed. 746 (1948) ) . Discussion It is well established that "the party who invokes the privilege bears the burden of establishing that it applies to the communications at issue and that it has not been waived. In re Keeper of Records (Grand Jury Subpoena Addressed to XYZ Corp.), 348 F.3d 16, 22 (1st Cir. 2003); State of Maine v. United States Dep't 9 of the Interior, 298 F.3d 60, 71 (1st Cir. 2002). Although not expressly required by the Federal Rules, "'the universally accepted means' of asserting privilege claims in the federal courts" are privilege logs. (1st Cir. In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 274 F.3d 563, 575-76 2001) (noting that "[a] party that fails to submit a privilege log is deemed to waive the underlying privilege claim"); see Corvello v. New England Gas Co., 243 F.R.D. 28, 33 (D.R.I. 2007) . Although the attorney-client privilege can be waived, either explicitly or by implication, the First Circuit has acknowledged that "[t] he concept of implied waiver of the privilege is not well-developed in this circuit." Desir, 273 F.3d 39, 45 (1st Cir. attorney-client United States v. 2001) (noting that \\, [w]aiver doctrine has only a few hardedged rules; as to many permutations, it is a fluid body of precedent reflecting a variety of concerns, including an insistence on real confidentiality and limitations based on fairness.'") (quoting United States v. Billmyer, 57 F.3d 31,37 (1st. Cir. 1995)). "highly valued", Because the attorney-client privilege is courts are advised to proceed with caution in finding implied waivers and \\ [c] laims of implied waiver . demand[] a fastidious sifting of the facts and a careful weighing of the circumstances." In re Subpoena Addressed to XYZ Corp.), Keeper Records (Grand Jury 348 F.3d at 23; see Adrian v. Mesirow Fin. Structured Settlements, LLC, 10 of 647 F.Supp.2d 126, 130 (D.P.R. 2009). In this particular case, Daniele failed to assert and protect its attorney-client privilege on at least three occasions. First, it is undisputed that the Consorzio requested Daniele provide a privilege log with respect to information it considered protected, but Daniele never produced such a log. Second, Daniele was excused from responding to the Consorzio's motion to compel only until this Court rendered a decision on Daniele's motion for summary judgment regarding Count I Complaint. summary of the See Pretrial Order (Doc.# 40). Daniele's motion for judgment was denied on September 15, 2008, at the conclusion of a hearing on the matter. Transcript of Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment 2008) (Doc. #48). same date, (Sept. 15, On the after discussing discovery matters with the parties during a bench conference, the Court referred the Discovery Motions to Magistrate Judge Martin for determination. The referral is noted on the docket, which results in electronic notification of all parties. weeks after CM/ECF Docket Entry from September 15, 2008. this Discovery motions, interim. referral, the magistrate after no obj ections judge had been granted filed Two the in the Al though a formal order denying Daniele's motion for summary judgment and staying discovery on Counts II and III of the 11 Complaint was not entered until October 2008,4 8, it is indisputable that Daniele was informed on September IS, 2008 that its motion for summary judgment had been denied and that the Discovery Motions had been transferred to the magistrate judge. Finally, Daniele's Motion for Reconsideration on the Text Order makes no mention of the attorney-privilege as a basis for objecting to the Discovery Motions. Instead, Daniele stated that its "meritorious objection" is based on the contention that "the discovery in question relates to Daniele's Memorandum (Doc. # 50). Counts II and III." Likewise, Daniele's memorandum in support of its objection to the Discovery motion, which addresses Interrogatories Nos. 10 and 16 and Request Nos. 8, 9, II, 23, 26, 27, 28, and 38 individually, advances the same argument that the information is not related to Count I of the Complaint. 5 After this Court denied Daniele's appeal of the magistrate judge's order regarding the Discovery motions, Daniele was afforded an extension of time to comply with the magistrate judge's orders compelling it Interrogatory 5. to produce certain documents and Text Order from February 5, 2009. respond to The requested 4 As Daniele conceded in its Motion for Reconsideration, (Doc.# 50), the parties "were unable to agree upon the wording of the proposed [half-page] order," resulting in the three-week delay. 5 With respect to Request No. response had been provided. 12 41, Daniele represented that a information has since been provided to the Consorzio and has been in its possession for more than a year. The matter would have been put to rest after Daniele's compliance with the magistrate judge's orders, but was revived at a deposition hearing when Daniele's former counsel asserted the attorney-client privilege with respect to information addressed in the magistrate judge's orders. Although the magistrate judge, in denying the Consorzio's motion for sanctions in connection with that deposition hearing, agreed that mere compliance with an order to produce documents does not waive a claim of attorney-client privilege, such finding was not dispositive Instead, the of the magistrate question of judge Daniele's declined in alleged waiver. awarding sanctions against Daniele because no explicit finding of waiver had been made, but he also noted that such a finding could be uinferred" from three previously issued discovery orders. Order at 12-13 n.9. (Doc.#93). Memorandum and Such inference, however, was deemed insufficient to impose sanctions based on an allegation that those orders had been violated. Once it became apparent that lack of an explicit finding regarding the alleged waiver would continue to result in discovery disputes regarding the already provided documents, the magistrate judge revisited the issue and determined that Daniele had waived its privilege with respect to documents it produced in response to the Text Order. Order (Doc. # 13 114). In so concluding, the magistrate judge pointed to Daniele's lack of timely opposition to the Discovery motions and its failure to assert the privilege in two subsequent filings. Id. at 5 n. 1. In other words, Daniele's privilege was not lost because the information was provided pursuant to the magistrate's orders. The privilege was lost because Daniele initially failed to object to the Discovery Motions, and then twice failed to assert the privilege when afforded another opportunity to argue its objections to those motions. produced a Moreover, it is undisputed that Daniele never privilege highlighting further log to that support the privilege its privilege was not claims, sufficiently guarded. Because the parties in this case continue to engage in discovery disputes which have thus far resulted in five separate appeals of the magistrate judge's orders (see Doc. ## 57, 78, 94, 105, 118), necessity. reviewing a clarification of Accordingly, the record the Text Order was the Court finds before it and that, clearly a after carefully considering the parties' arguments, the magistrate judge's order granting the Consorzio's motion for clarification was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Magistrate Judge Martin's order granting the Consorzio's motion for clarification is AFFIRMED and 14 the appeal is DENIED and DISMISSED. SO ORDERED: ~A ¢ ¢ Oh d}'- Ma~si' tM..< Chief United States District Judge Date: June _1 2010 I 15
]]>
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.
