United States District Court, D. Connecticut
JED HORWITT, Esq., as Receiver for Sentinel Growth Fund Management, LLC, Radar Alternative Fund LP, and Radar Alternative Master Fund SPC, Plaintiff,
v.
ALAN L. SARROFF, A.L. SARROFF MANAGEMENT, LLC, and A.L. SARROFF FUND, LLC, Defendants.
RULING ON DISCOVERY DISPUTE
VICTOR
A. BOLDEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
On July
11, 2019, the Court held a telephonic discovery conference
with Jed Horwitt, Esq. (“Plaintiff” or “the
Receiver”), and Alan L. Sarroff, A.L. Sarroff
Management, LLC (“Sarroff Mgmt.”), and A.L.
Sarroff Fund, LLC (“Sarroff Fund”) (collectively,
“Defendants”), to address a pending discovery
dispute related to the testimony of two witnesses, Alan L.
Sarroff and Larry Smith, in this action. Minute Entry, dated
Jun. 11, 2019, ECF No. 130. The Receiver seeks to compel
these witnesses, who were deposed in April 2019, to provide
additional testimony that Defendants argue is protected from
disclosure under the attorney-client privilege. Joint Motion
for Status Conference, dated Jun. 7, 2019 (“Joint
Mot.”), ECF No. 115.
For the
reasons explained below, the Court finds that the Receiver is
not entitled to this additional testimony.
I.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Familiarity
with the facts and prior proceedings, as detailed in the
Court’s May 10, 2019 Ruling denying Defendants’
motion to transfer venue or dismiss this case, is assumed.
See Ruling on Motion to Transfer Venue or Dismiss,
dated May 10, 2019, ECF No. 102, at 1–14.
On June
7, 2019, the parties jointly moved for a telephonic discovery
conference. Joint Mot. The parties sought the Court’s
aid in resolving “the Receiver’s prospective
motion to compel testimony (and the production of related
documents) over Defendants’ objection based on (i) the
crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege; and
(ii) the alleged overbreadth of certain other attorney-client
privilege assertions made by Sarroff and Larry Smith (Sarroff
Management’s Managing Member) at their
depositions.” Id. at 1. The parties argue that
there are two issues to resolve: “(1) The application
of the crime-fraud exception to certain communications
between Sarroff, Smith and Defendant’s counsel in late
2014 and late 2015;” and “(2) The application of
the attorney-client privilege to certain matters concerning
Sarroff’s and Smith’s knowledge and state of
mind.” Id. at 3.
On June
13, 2019, the Court granted the parties’ motion,
ordering them to submit short briefs by June 14, 2019,
outlining their respective positions on the discovery
dispute. Order, dated Jun. 13, 2019. The Court scheduled a
telephonic discovery conference for June 18, 2019.
Id.
On June
14, 2019, the Receiver filed his brief. See
Plaintiff’s Statement of Position Regarding the
Application of the Crime-Fraud Exception to the
Attorney-Client Privilege and Scope of the Attorney-Client
Privilege, dated Jun. 14, 2019 (“Pl.’s
Br.”), ECF No. 118.
On June
15, 2019, Defendants filed their brief. Defendants’
Statement Regarding the Application of the Crime-Fraud
Exception to the Attorney-Client Privilege, dated Jun. 15,
2019 (“Defs.’ Br.”), ECF No. 129.
On June
17, 2019, the Court continued the discovery conference
sua sponte to June 27, 2019. Notice of E-Filed
Calendar, dated Jun. 17, 2019, ECF No. 123.
On June
25, 2019, the parties jointly moved to continue the discovery
conference. Joint Motion, dated Jun. 25, 2019, ECF No. 126.
On June
26, 2019, the Court granted that motion and continued the
discovery conference to July 11, 2019. Order, dated Jun. 26,
2019, ECF No. 127; Notice of E-Filed Calendar, dated Jun. 26,
2019, ECF No. 128.
On July
11, 2019, the Court held a telephonic discovery conference
with the parties. Minute Entry, dated Jul. 11, 2019, ECF No.
130. The Court reserved its rulings as to the discovery
dispute. Id.
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Under
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[p]arties may
obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is
relevant to any party’s claim or defense and
proportional to the needs of the case, considering the
importance of the issues at stake in the action . . . the
importance of discovery in resolving the issues, and whether
the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its
likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
But
“district courts have the inherent authority to manage
their dockets and courtrooms with a view toward the efficient
and expedient resolution of cases.” Dietz v.
Bouldin, 136 S. Ct. 1885, 1892 (2016). Indeed,
“[a] trial court enjoys wide discretion in its handling
of pre-trial discovery . . . .” Cruden v. Bank of
N.Y., 957 F.2d 961, 972 (2d Cir. 1992); see In Re
Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig., 517 F.3d 76, 103 (2d
Cir. 2008) (the district court has “wide latitude to
determine the scope of discovery.”); Gen. Houses v.
Marloch Mfg. Corp., 239 F.2d 510, 514 (2d Cir. 1956)
(“The order of examination is at the discretion of the
trial judge . . . .”).
III.
...