Lightfoot v. Rosskopf

District of Columbia, dcd-1:2004-cv-01059

ORDER regarding in camera documents. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 6/27/2005. (lcjf1,)

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JAMES LIGHTFOOT, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 04-1059 (JMF) HENRY ROSSKOPF, Defendant. ORDER On June 10, 2005, I issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting in part and staying in part defendant's Motion to Compel Discovery [#23]. I also ordered plaintiff to provide several documents and a privilege log for in camera review. The following chart summarizes my rulings with respect to each document submitted for in camera review. Description of Plaintiff's Court's Ruling Document Response May (should be Protected by Even if it qualifies as work product, it was disclosed March) 15, 2003 work product to plaintiff's adversary (D.C. Public Schools) in his letter from attorney privilege employment case and therefore the privilege was Clair to waived Superintendent of D.C. Public School Plaintiff shall produce to defendant by June 29, 20051 February 20, 2004 Protected by Already ordered produced letter from EEO work product Counsel for DCPS privilege Even if it had not yet been ordered produced, work to plaintiff product privilege is inapplicable because it was Lightfoot written by EEO Counsel for DCPS Office of Human Resources to plaintiff (and was not written by Lightfoot or his attorney) Plaintiff shall produce to defendant by June 29, 2005 1 I am requiring production by June 29, 2005 because the pretrial conference in this matter is scheduled for June 30, 2005. April 28, 2004 Protected by According to D.C. Office of Human Rights protocol, affidavit by work product once filed, copies of the charge of discrimination are Lightfoot (written privilege mailed to each party within 15 days of filing with counsel's assistance) to D.C. Thus, even if it qualifies as work product, it was Office of Human disclosed to plaintiff's adversary (D.C. Public Rights Schools) in his employment case and therefore the privilege was waived Plaintiff shall produce to defendant by June 29, 2005 April 16, 2003 Protected by Even if it qualifies as work product, it was disclosed letter from attorney work product to plaintiff's adversary (D.C. Public Schools) in his Clair to Annette privilege employment case and therefore the privilege was Adams, waived Superintendent of DCPS Plaintiff shall produce to defendant by June 29, 2005 May 5, 2003 letter Protected by Disclosure to third party (non-adversary) did not from attorney Clair work product waive the work product protection to Dr. Thomas Gay privilege Only the second-to-last sentence (beginning with the word "maybe") reveals counsel's mental impressions The rest of the document simply recounts facts and must be produced Plaintiff shall produce redacted version to defendant by June 29, 2005 April 25, 2003 Protected by Even if it qualifies as work product, it was disclosed letter from attorney work product to plaintiff's adversary (D.C. Public Schools) in his Clair to Loretta privilege employment case and therefore the privilege was Blackwell, Director waived of Labor Management and Plaintiff shall produce to defendant by June 29, 2005 Employee Relations 2 May 11, 2004 letter Public Document lost work product protection when it was from attorney Clair document but made available to the public (including plaintiff's to Haydn Demas, protected by adversary in his employment case) Investigator for the work product D.C. Office of privilege Plaintiff shall produce to defendant by June 29, 2005 Human Rights June 23, 2004 Public Document lost work product protection when it was status report from document but made available to the public (including plaintiff's attorney Clair to protected by adversary in his employment case) D.C. Office of work product Human Rights privilege Even if it were not a public document, to uphold plaintiff's claim would trivialize the work product doctrine because this document merely recounts the progress of the D.C. Office of Human Rights complaint and deals with scheduling matters Plaintiff shall produce to defendant by June 29, 2005 August 2, 2004 Not Document may constitute work product because it letter from attorney discoverable was written in anticipation of trial, but to uphold Clair to Bobby because it is a claim of work product would trivialize the privilege James Hoet communication because the document reveals nothing more than (withdrawing relating to plaintiff revealed in his privilege log complaint from confidential D.C. Office of settlement Plaintiff shall produce to defendant by June 29, 2005 Human Rights) negotiations SO ORDERED. _____________________________ JOHN M. FACCIOLA Dated: UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 3