United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING ON DEFENDANT SAVALLE'S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION [Doc. #72]
SARAH A. L. MERRIAM UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
before the Court is a motion [Doc. #72] by defendant Vincent
Savalle (“Savalle”) seeking reconsideration of
the Court's November 5, 2019, Ruling denying
Savalle's renewed motion to quash a subpoena issued by
plaintiff Main Street America Assurance Company (“Main
Street”) to non-party Teri Davis. [Doc. #69]. For the
reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS
Savalle's motion for reconsideration [Doc.
#72], and adheres to its prior Ruling.
Court presumes familiarity with the background of this matter
which is set forth in the Ruling on Savalle's renewed
motion to quash. See Doc. #69 at 1-3. However, the Court
briefly addresses the background leading to the present
motion for reconsideration.
September 4, 2019, Main Street noticed the issuance of a
subpoena to non-party Teri Davis (“Davis”),
commanding her to appear and testify at a deposition, and to
produce the documents identified on Schedule A to the
subpoena. See Doc. #63-1. Schedule A seeks:
Any and all documents, records, correspondence, memorandum,
notes and/or logs regarding the insurance you obtained for or
on behalf of Vincent Savalle from 2010 to the present; the
work Vincent Savalle performed at 217 Ledgen Wood Road (now
known as 24 Island Road) in North Stonington, Connecticut;
the lawsuit captioned Lee Winakor v. Vincent Savalle, New
London Superior Court, Civil Action No.
KNL-CV15-6024218-S; or the instant litigation captioned
Main Street America Assurance Co. v. Vincent
Savalle, et al., including but not limited to
correspondence between you, on the one side, and the
following individuals/entities on the other side: Attorney
James Lee, Attorney Frank Liberty, Charles G. Marcus Agency,
Inc., Main Street America Assurance Company, and/or Karl
Butzgy. You are further commanded to bring any notations,
diaries, logs, notes, notations, records, memorandum
regarding such communications and/or oral conversations or
meetings with such individuals/entities.
Doc. #63-1 at 6 (sic). The subpoena noticed Davis'
deposition for September 20, 2019, at 1:30PM. See
Id. at 3.
September 13, 2019, Savalle filed a motion to quash the
subpoena. [Doc. #54]. On September 16, 2019, Judge Janet C.
Hall referred that motion to the undersigned. [Doc. #56]. On
the same date, the Court denied Savalle's motion, without
prejudice to re-filing, for failure to comply with the Local
Rules. See Doc. #58. The Court ordered counsel for Savalle
and counsel for Main Street to engage in a further
meet-and-confer conference. See Id. To the extent
that counsel were unable to resolve the dispute presented in
Savalle's motion to quash, then Savalle was to re-file
his motion by October 4, 2019. See Id. In accordance
with that Order, Savalle timely re-filed the motion to quash
on October 4, 2019. [Doc. #63]. Main Street filed an
objection to Savalle's motion on October 10, 2019. [Doc.
moved to quash the subpoena served on Davis because it
“expressly seeks communications protected by the
attorney-client privilege.” Doc. #63 at 1. Main Street
responded, inter alia, that Savalle “has failed to meet
his burden to show that the information and documents
sought... are protected by attorney-client privilege.”
Doc. #67 at 1. Main Street also challenged the sufficiency of
Savalle's privilege log. See Id. at 1-3.
Although Savalle did provide a privilege log with the renewed
motion to quash, he did not file any affidavits or other
evidence supporting his claim of the attorney-client
November 5, 2019, the Court issued a Ruling denying
Savalle's renewed motion to quash. [Doc. #69]. In
pertinent part, the Court denied Savalle's motion because
he “failed to sustain his burden of establishing the
applicability of the attorney-client privilege.” Doc.
#69 at 12. The Court also found that Savalle's privilege
log “is deficient and also fails to support his
assertion that the attorney-client privilege applies to the
emails at issue.” Id. at 18.
seeking reconsideration of the Court's Ruling, Savalle
contends that the Court overlooked controlling precedent,
namely the Connecticut Supreme Court case of Woodbury
Knoll, LLC v. Shipman and Goodwin, LLP, 48 A.3d 16
(Conn. 2012) (hereinafter “Woodbury”). The Court
considers Savalle's arguments below.
legal standards applicable to a motion for reconsideration
A motion for reconsideration is an extraordinary request that
is granted only in rare circumstances, such as where the
court failed to consider evidence or binding authority.
“The standard for granting such a motion is strict, and
reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving
party can point to controlling decisions or data that the
court overlooked - matters, in other words, that might
reasonably be expected to alter ...