gov.uscourts.nysd.447706.135.0.pdf

> , , r UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------- ---------------x VIRGINIA L. GUIFFRE, Plaintiff, 15 Civ. 7433 (RWS_ - against - OPINION GHISLAIN.E MAXWELL, Defendant. --------------------------------------~-x A P P E A R A N C ~ S: . r( .. Counsel for plaintiffs .. z 1. Ii BOEIS, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP ! · 401 Ea's t L'a.s 01·as Boulevard, ·sufte 1200 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 By: ·'' Sigrid$. Mccawley, E:sq. Meredith L. Schultz, Esq. Counsel for Defendants HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East Tenth Avenue Denver, CO 80203 By: Laura A. Menninger, Esq. Jeffrey S. Pagliuca, Esq. USDCSDNY DOCUivfENT ELECrRONICAL ..Y FILED DOC#: ..D-:_,.'J=-l. f-)...+-+ DATE FI-LE- [ '("""",, ~ 1 } t .-----------------------------------~---·'-. Sweet, D.J. Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre ("Giuffre" or "Plaintiff") has moved to compel De fe ndant Ghislaine Maxwell ("Maxwell" or "qefendant") .";:.~o J?l;Oduce documents withheld on the grounds of privile'ge ':E Ba'S ed on the conclusions set forth below, '''· ;.:'.'''1'"''.·'.::-· the motion is granted in p~rt and d$nied in p~rt. ·.;. ,:., l. l : .~. forth in the · Court's Feb.r:_tjA~Y 2'. 6', , 2,016 ~ Opinion denying :'"' .' .~ . . Defendant's motion to dismiss, this case concerns Defendant's statements denying Plaintiff's allegations concerning Defendant's role in Plaintiff's sexual abuse as a minor. On February 26, 2016,,. Plaintif f fi led the ins tant motio n to compel Defendant to respond to interrogatories to which Defendant has claimed the protection of the attorney-client, attorney -cl ie nt-ag ent , and common interest privileges. Oral argument was held o n Mar c h 17, 2016. Du ring argument, the Cour t held th at in camera review was warranted for purposes of 2 ., determining whether privilege applied to the do c um e nts in quest i on, and Defendant was directed to file any further submis s ions necessary to establish her privilege claim. On March 31, 2016, Defendant submitted a declaration and exhibits in opposition to Plaintiff's motion, at which point the matter was deemed fully c submitted. ·. II. The J?riv;i.l.ege Claim$ at l$l?rie : Defendant has withheld 99 pages of emails with communications involving various combinations of Brett Jaffe, Esq. ("Jaffe"), Mark Cohen, Esq. ("Cohen"), Philip Barden ' ·' . ,i~ ' :;; ("Barden"), Ross Gow ("Gow"), Brian Basham ("Basham"), and- facts that follow summarize Defendant's assertions regar ding her relationship to each of these individuals. Defendant h i red Jaff e , th~n of Co h en & Gresser LLP, to represent her in connection wlth l ega l matte r s in the United States a t some indeterminate point in 2009 . Def.'s Deel . of L.A . Menninger in Supp. Def.'s Resp . to Pl .' s Mot. to Compel Production of Docs. Subject to Improper Privilege, ECF . No. 47 , 3  Ex. E, :SI :~ '' {:,'Maxwell Deel."). Detendant does not set forth an. end date.: .. t _o . Jaf~e! s , representation ·, but swears that when JaH~E; ·i ,1~$ t .C.phen,.&, G:resse.;r-1· M~rlc ·•• .Coben continued as her counsel· . . I:d ;, '][ ·" Defendant hired Barden of Devonshire : Solic-Jtor;:>;" on Ma•r .ch·~A, 2011 to represerit her in connection with legal matters in England, .C!.n.d Wa-les. ) p,. <J[ 1. befendant hired Gow, her "media agerit," on tlie . same d~t,e • .Id . '][ 6. Defenc:lant conununi.cated · pursuant to a. conunon interest agreement betwe.e n them and their respective :: ; ·"·.•,..,•··· De;e~,~~~~ ~nderst~od. . . ~:"~e act in~ 1;;{:-:,.· _;, :s understood for some . f ~ '. unidentified period of time. Id. '][ 15. .,, ,, Defendant has not established the natur e of her relationship with Basham. " 4 -----------------------------------'-------- -· Defe ndant's withheld emails c a n be organized as fo ll o ws l: 1 . Communications wi th Jaffe on March 15, 2011, #1000-19. 2 2 . Communications with Gow on January 2 , 2011, #1020-26. 3. Communications with Gow and Basham on January 2, 2015, #1027- =.~ 1 028. 4. Communications with Barden a. On January 10, 2015, #1045-51 5. Communications wf th Barden ·and Gow a. On January 10, 2015, #1044 b. On January 9 ~rid ~ to, 2015, #1052-55 c. On January 11, 2015, #1055-58 d~ - On · January 21::,c: :·,2'Q11Sy #108'8-90 · · 6. Communications with -~ a. On January '6, 2trf5", ~ #T02 9 b. On January 11, 2015, #1055-58 c. Between January 11 and 17, 2015, #1059 -' 83,'·, including for~arded email between Barden #1069-73, #1076 - 79, and including forwarded email between Barden, Defendant, and Cohen, #1068-69, 1074-76. d. Between January 21 and 27, 2015, #1084-1098, #1099. 7. Communications with . · on Jan ffary 6, 2015, #1030-43. Some emails w~te forw~rdea ~or carbon copied ("C~ i d") later in the chain, le'adihg to some· oVerlap and duplication. Whether one party or ~nother ~was ~ ; dir~ct r~~ipient or a CC'd recipient of • a n email is n6t si gnifica nt f6 r purposes of th e privil ege a n al ysis, as the waiver is sue i s d ete rmin ed by th e purpose of the third-party's inclusion in the cormnunications, not ne cessarily whether the com~un i cation was d irected toward them by copy or di rect emai l. See ~' MOE9..~E1:_Y..:_~i::~o rk S t ate 1 This organizat io n is derived from Defe nd a n t ' s privi l ege log_ Is s ue s wit h respect to characterizations in th e log will be address e d infra § v_ ---- 2 All references prece ded by # refer to the Bates s tamp number of Defendant ' s in came ra su bmi ssio n s . 5  ,· " Dep't of Envtl. , ConsE?~vat;\.on, 9 A.D.3d.S86, 5$8, 779 N.Y.S.2d 64 3, 645 (2004) (pri'[il~ge ;J,9st whep · dos;urnen:ts were carbon copied to a t~i~d ; P?rtyf;, ~~~::.~lso . ~nfra irv. ·.'i Defendant claims the ~,4tor::n,~y ;.client :pr:ivilege . ~ppLie.s to .. ::;¥·;,; ;__ i~· ~ ;r ,.. -~.'~' '< '. .. groups l and 5, the Ci•ti:t<1?.~%~Y~~cJ.i.t£EIJt :q.g:e!;l.?, ,:priyiJ,eg_e,' applies to • ;·.. .;. ·.'.'./ ... '.;_rt • .... groups 2 through 4; and the,,.:toqf!W,)b)1<· ~n,.t~~.es)I•;P_~ i;yq_~He ,9pplies to ~ .. , . DE;;~ er:dan ~ ~·hc;ts f.:,~1?~B~.e? .:,:.~~~ ~p J?8.t~.9t, ~ QJ} , 8; ·. p~ iyi ~e9¢ , for communications ... · :;·, .;' with.·". ;,New, ...':i:'o.rk. -co.u nsel I"'.<:'.':.· · ·.;•::._., ::-•:{,Y~-~:;;.: Jaffe '.and'.'i'. London f'1'JJ~:':::> ' ; :·/,''.J. ~:{_:j.,_~.: solici .:·. . toL ~:,•,;"• "· _;·::'.·. •".i·• .. :· t Barde11. O~f e.nda,nt . c;loes . ,no_t,. pi~J21f,te that :th,e COJllffiunicat_;io n~ witl} . Jaffe are, governe<J; by_ th~ . pr~v. He9e law 9£ NE!"t York State. Def.' s Supp . . Mem . .of ,L,(;l\'f . . iD . Resp. to fl.' s Mo.t. to Compel . , . , ~ -. ·- '-• ., ·~ •'. ·j!. ;-1 ... . .. . Production of D9c.umel)t~ , .. ~pb.ji;;c.t . to Improp_e r Claim of . Privilege, ECF No. 46 1 at . 3 ("Def.' ,s . S?P,P· Opp."); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 50 1; Alli .e d IrishBanks:y. , BankofArn., N.A., 240 F.R.D. 96, 102 (S.D.N .Y . 2007) ("Because this Court's subject matter jurisdiction is based upon diver si ty . . . state law provides the r ule of decision concerning the c laim of at t orney-cli ent 6 _______________________________________ ........ _. privilege."). However, Defendant submits that a choice of law issue arises with respect to her communications with Barden. Id. at 3~5. Defendant has not specified whether she seeks to withhold documents containing communications with Ba 'rd~n subject to the Bri ti.Sh l~gal-advice or litigation , pri Vile·g $s.:. Rather;, ··• Defendaht":r'. s privilege log 'lists the "attorney"-client prfV:;i,.lege'f with respciC't t:o the , B·a rden commurilcati9hs - i:i.nd h]'.'oa(;lly... asseri;s'. that all privileges asserted are "pursuant to· Br. itish liaWT Colorado law and NY law. 11 Privilege Log at 1. Defendant argues construed pursuant' to British law." Def.'s • Supp . Opp; at '. 4~ I t is only in Defendant's in camera filing that Defendant has provided any legal argument supporting an assertion of protection under British privilege law.3 Defendant's claim is based on two suppositions: first, tha t " [t Jhe UK litigation privilege protects communications to and 3 Defendant argued in s upp l emental opposition that "Ms . .Maxwell has not had sufficient time to secure appropr iate affidavits, d ocuments and legal opinions concern ing British law's attorney- client privi l e ge s ," see king additional time to submit these materials. Def.'s Supp. Op p. a t 4.  from~ cli~nt ;,and h e r atftorney and . to a third party[.]" Deel. of L, A. Menninger: in :' ;Supp,. . D.~f. ' .S, I,n" Camera Submissions ("Menninger Deel.") <JI 24 (emphasis in original). Second, that the scope of privilege is wider tnan explicit legal advice provided in the context ._qf lu ~'.i.<g4t:io,n,.;. encqmpassing .c;ornrnunications related to "actual;; o·f: : i:;qn t;,~~~f:i'lt~d ;Jlt!i.f,t ;i.gatrion./ ', ;:I<;l, < temphasis in origiIJa.J,):.. Defendant ,s,uP,P,q~t .s. J:q.~ s:.e.;,·::a';r:g .!Jmepts :,with'. ci>tC1tion to, <Be.label ,v; .;: Air:, d;ri~·~q:id i~~s:,8J.;;:.~:D/•;-0 ·f';I~, ~- L9'.J'.'d,:~:r'.a y,l ;q ,t: .aI).d ,:- ;:i, t::~ p,rog_eny : Trrre:~ · · ·.·, Riy_e :r:s r1 DC:: v.::.f-JB~.f1;)<_ t qf~i.Ehg·}.aJ1d,j,. tpi:scJ;_q5q,i:$·l i.'~;<No' ~ ' A)-, _ [20_0:5 J , .1 . ~· . q . 610 and :!:· (No·~:·J:?l0::l itk'f:2:.0.,0Hd:OJ{}!L ;>~'8 .c;,'·i n,. ,, . . ,, .. Lo:tq,/I'q:Y%9,~;s ;;; : ,9p,;i.n)l;pn , ·.tn ;B.e;labw ;;,explioitly · addr~ss~ w ·P "wheU1e;r;'•: ;[tn<?~rfleg~,J.;.r.pr~ofess »ion~d.J j pr·iY.iJ.~ge . ex-tends ·Only .to -. communications seeking or conveying legal advice, or to all that pass~ _s , b~.t;weeJl) .l'?oiil.:icitor;,, :<;iDO' clien-_t on;. matters within the · ordinary . busines~ ;;_ o£,,. a · s .olic:i,ctor." · BC1label, Ch. 317, 321-332. Lord Taylor discusses at 1-ength,; whether communications between a solicitor and client are privileged if they do not con tain explici.t 1~gal .- advice 1 • ultimately dec idi ng the scope of the pr ivi lege i,s wider; rd, at 330 ("the test is whether the communic a tion or other document was made confiden tially for the purpose of legal advice."). However, Defendant ' s citation does not su pp6rt the statem ~nt for which it is directly cited: t hat waiver d oes no t apply to coinmu nications includi ng a thi rd -party 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----·- · · · ·-· .,· · if for the purpose of contemplated litigation. Plaintiff, with the aid of British counsel and without having seen Defendant's British law argument, s6bmits an interpretation of British law directly contradicting Defendant's. 4 • • .~ ·f This precarious support provides an insufficient foundation for the Court to apply foreign law to Defendant's claims. See .. .. ~ /. Tansey ·v. Cochlear ' ttd., No. ···13-"CV-4628 SJF ' SI·L , · 2014 WL . 4676588, at *'4 (E.';D; N.Y; · Sept. 18, 2014) ("the party relying on foreign law has the ''l:forden of showing such law bars production ' of documents." (quoting: ;B'rigl:itEdge Techs-.·, !nc. v. Searchmetrics; · GtnbH, '14-'cv-1009-WHO; 2014 WL 3~r65062 * 2 (N. D. Cal. Aug / 13/ 2014) (internal quotation · marks omitted)) . Moreover, at ~ea~t cirie New York court has fourid that British ~rivilege iaw is "apparently similar" to New York'~. Aetna Cas. & SuL Co. · v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London, 4 "Wh ere the re is no attorney involved in the communication ... , ther e can be n o 'lega l advice' pr ivilege unde r English La w"; "(i]n absence of any express ob ligati on of confidentiality, [Pla intiff] submits that privilege does not attach to communications involving Ross Gow and th e lawyer."; "Und er En g.lish Law, commun icati o ns between client and la wyer through an age nt will be protected by l egal advice privilege, but thi s will on ly app ly in sit uations wh ere the agent f un ct i ons as n o more than a mere co nduit." Pl.'s Reply in Respon se to Def .'s Su pp . Mem. of L. in Resp . to Pl.'s Mot. to Compel the Productio n of Documents S ub ject to Improper Claim of Priv. at 4-6 (emphas i s removed ) ("Pl.' s Reply ") . 9  176 t'lisc. 2_d ~05, 609, . ,676N.Y ., S.?d 727 (Sup. ct. 1998) (citirg Waugh v .. Eriti.sti J\ys ;, : BQ.,., .<19~Q i {\C_ .S?l [H. L.]), aff' d sub . nom .. A~tna cc;i.s. : & Sur. _Cq_. , v; . . <:;er:tain ., Urn:ferwri ter.s . i'lt . Lloyd ,' s / 2?3· A.D.2d 367, 692 N.Y.S.2d 384 (19~Q). -/ L'hat .(!ourt found that both do~trines ~require that legal advice be a ptedominate purpose of ''· L. The,.~nP ~-~. Y~:.l ~S].E'{~,911ci,:~Y~: ~:§-.:,-;li !;!(}er ef U~ ,·):ci\f '.,}?1?.~;3.l,)- ~ ~-s · tl:le . . ~-n -~J,Xf~ s ~~·~_.;-· .. k ~,laW.;F·.l'i'eql,Jir"iitg un,d er,. New,.Ybr- 'J.;,··;:-, _'.·:,_ -~·-:·-"'\.:.~'.:-<. ·~.c:· .. (d: ) a <:.<;::ominunicaotion , between .'an r, .1 -~:(<~-,,.~¥·••~· '.~.-~~_:···; ! , .• l ~~;_ ·::~ •• ' ' : - ' ~:-<' ::~_ ... _ -~':.', .:· . ·-1._,.i_ •• '--~ . atJ:,pr.,11eY.;;. a,,n~d . 61Je~~:~:< J;i,4) .. W}1.,q~ j ;h. ~J1,e '.'·YPPJ:-~e ,..o:t, tli,13 represent a:tion ':/. S:~:.~tr!.: : Sc:ii¥t:f;~h;':_:);~~f:-~~·~r~ ;.3f:·.; P.~9:V;~~gj, ng ··. ~~~a.),. i ,actyi c;e-. CorriEar~ . T;h:ree.. "'R·:i:·~er s~~pG..;;tn.~spJ.;R?~E-~Jt .,. {N,o .:A.'.> ,<;ilJ?:O OSJ.:;,.l /~·~,r:;, .- .6:1.Q 1t1ith.. ~,e :o.vle .,_.;y.• ,M,i;t~Jii:;i-:I;)!•,-.i .5. 8, . N;· Y\·}ci. : 3;6,8~ . 3,7.3, ,..448 ' ~ ~: E ;2 dJ 1_2:1 ., i. · (1983). The policy purposes 6f privilege in both jurisdictions also mi..r ~fn<gr:ie : aqp.t:l1e_;I:;,·.'·" Qori)p.::u::e , B~;Lab~l at .. 324. (" [TJ.he, basic princ;ip},~ . j u,s,;t:;j fy;~ng, )e,g!]31 pro;tes_q _i\?!}al priyilege arises .•<Grom the public ::.:..in;t~re.st . . , .;re q:u_iTir,i_g_,ful.,l .fl.nd · frank exchange of . .. .. . . '..: .. ; . _,. . .: . . ·-.. ,. : -: .;. -~- confidence between sol i citor and client to enable the latter to receive necessaty · legal"' advice.''!) ·• with People · v. · Mitchell, 58 ·' -~ N.Y. 2d 368 , 373; 448 : N',E .2d 1.21 (1983) ("[C.P~L.R. § 45'03's] purpose is to· ensure· that one seeking legal advice will be able 5 As reasoned ~£1..~ra, the .predominate purpose of the communicat.ions is the primary issue with respect to Defendant's cla im t h at privilege applies to the communications with Barden. 10  to confide fully and freely in his attorney, secure in the knowledge that his confidence will not later be revealed to the public to his detriment -or .'his embarrassment") . Even the purposes for which Defendant cites British law--to assert that the scope of :privilege ·can (i) .-encompass communications to non- ·attorneys, (.iik made outside of the context of pending : .. ,.,T.. litigation--are directly addressed hy ~lements .of .New York law. ~ ,:,.. .::·; ;.. ' .;· . .• ,:-<''" ' Respectively, (i) New York; s agency and common intere.s t -- ,, -~ .0. . ~~:~~;, ,. . privileges extend the umbrella of attorney-client communications " ;:.! -~{ .:. ~-~<~ ·. ·; ;~ ~ ;. to third parties, and (ii) the analysis regarding the j·· predominance of legal advice in the communications at issue and Ambac Assur. Corp. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.6 both expand the scope of privilege to protect certain content unrelated to ongoing litigation. See infra § IV. Indeed, Defendant refers to New York law citations to support her argument about the : ;.· protection provided "[p]ursuant to British legal authority." Menninger Deel. t 25 ("citing NY law for same principle."). A choice of law analys is need not be reached where the law applied is not outcome determinative. On Time Aviation, Inc. v. Bombardie r Capital, Inc., 354 F. App'x 448, 450 n.l (2d Cir. 2 009). 6 1 2 4 A.D.3d 129, 998 N.Y.S.2d 32 9 (20 1 4) (holding l i tigati o n i s n o t p e r se n e cessary for app l i c ation of th e c ommon int e r es t privi.l e g e ). 11  Finallyi app~ying ~ the v choice of 1aW ' test tesults irr • · . applicati·on of . New · York -1 law~., .. J\s:t:--ha_s !ibeen heil:d in this district; ",,: f w) here, ,as · he.rei!:;:alTeged ,~pri vileg~d ·communications ·· took pla~e in a for~ign country or involved foreign attorneys or ,; proc::eeding$,;'! t :hii.s G;9u.L1t~:nde:fers ; to 1 t ·he i>' l ,aw ;. of , the country : that has the · "predoininant" or "the most direct and corrip~d;iki,f:lg,tfii'itei;;eis,t;<:1~i~!i;Dn ;;: wbe tl;per"~An hose ·. cornmunications ri' shbuld remain conUdentiaL Ur,ile§·s that foreign law is contrary to vbe: ': 1puJ:~J::i c ~po:l'·;L¢,y,; i~d;t;:·' t::J1:is,,\.\iff.o:i:urit·i ;c~ \i; f.;.:.J _..,"_" ,, ,, Astra Aktie}:)olag .v·. Ail.dJ:"x dl?harm., ., Inc. / 208 ;F. R. o. 92, 98 )!'f. ,, ;.<'; dL ·L:!~;~r4~}:·~· h:if~~' ~'.h>;;j;!1 i{};. :.; ';.,·~:;1Y , T' ; ...: , ,. ··· .. (S~D.N,Y. 2oo;a; (quoting G9lcte.;n Trad~, S.r.L, v. Lee Apparel ;i~ :.t ~<.: ~>_/~;:0:~~~~~.'.i -~;(- =~fft.~~~ ~;: r:~~;;';~:~~-~:~~ ;~ <~~-.t~--~~ .tr··. J ·.:,~: -": ~ ~~.< ~3;J} .,~ ~ 1 ;,. :;; : ,. '~ • ·~ ~ ·- ~ .:~Lt:~:;~'.~· :.:·:;.' ~. 'Ji t Co., 143 !r, R.i'.L 514, 5.22 : o. N.Y. 1992); Bayer AG & f1iles, Inc. v. Barr Labs . ., In!'.;., Nc,L 92 CIV. 0381 CWK)t 1.994 WL 705331, at r~.t~ ~-- ·. ·.r .~<:;~··:~~·;tr;;ti:r:~~~:r(:*+~:~·i~~~:fi~f-~t'li ;::-··itrdt:~~- .': ·r=1 :r r1· .•, *4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec.· 161 ~994)). t~. ,·. ~~€-. :: . . The Court has previously held that New York has the ... .. , '. :i ·;1 '.;:_. _.,,.;!,•· :': ·. ,: ,:;· ,_:· predominate interest in this case. ~iuffre v. Maxwell, No. 15 CIV. 7433 (RWS)~ 2016 WL 831949, at *2 n.2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 29, 2016) ("Because New York has the most significant interest, New York law applies.~) . The potential litigation for which .. ·~., '"": ·'· .{.: ;":0.. •. "t ·' ·'i .•.• Defendant sought Barden's advice never came to fruition and no ·."? .P: ' ·:..:::•.< pending is s ues i n or relating to Britain have been pled. Thus, any c onsequence resulting from a ruling on the confid e nt i a l ity of the Barden commun i cations will sound only in New York, the s itu s of th i s c ase and the location of the allegedly defamatory s tat e me n t s a t is sue: New York therefore ha s the predominat e 12  interest .in whether these communications remain confidential. The similarity be t weeh New ~ork and British attorney-client privileg~ demonstrates that no public polidy conflict exi~ts. Consequently, New York law applies to all of Plaintiff's privilege ~laims. ; .~ -. . . ~ IV. Applicable Sti:l.ndali(:t .1 :: . The purpose of the attorney~client privil ege is to facilitate and safeguard the provision of legal advice; "to •... ,.,_,.,,. .. ~ .. ,_;;, :: ,.,.,..• ~- '='·· ensure that one seeking legal advice will be able to confide :r. .._:; -~ ·: ,:•;.·. ;. ~ . fully and freely in his attorney.u Mitchell, 58 N.Y.2d at 373. New York law provides: :'!. Unless the client waives the privilege, an attorney or his or her employee, or any pe~son who obtains without the knowledge of the client evidence of a confidential corrununication ma.d e · between th.e attorney or his . or her employee and the client in the course of professional employment, shal1 .· not . disclose r or be allowed to disclose such communication, nor shall the client be compelled t o disclose such communication, in any action(.] N.Y.C.P.L.R. § 4503(a) (1). The privilege only appli es to attorney-client communications "primarily or predominately of a l ega l ch aracter." Hossi v. Blue Cross & Blue Shi.el.?..._C?l._..S:;r ~_<: ter N ...1_:_, 13  73 N, Y . .2d 588, 594 1 542 : N :~Y.$, ,.2d 508" 540 N.E.2d 703 (1989)); are protect;e,d r Ic:U "The : cri-tica.J.,; ...ingui.r y i-s .whether,, ,v;:i:e....,,ing ; the :· · lawyer's communication in its full content and .c.ontex,t, '.i ,t wqs l> made in order t6 tend~i legal advice or setvites to the client." . . Id . (quoting :?eect..rurn $y$, I.nJ'.l C(>rp, . v~ C,hem, qBank, 78 N. Y.2d .-· - ·· .~~~tJf E~?i:f~:~;~ S.. :2:=. :·;· :ti.~i·~{~ ·i 371, 379, 575 N.Y.S.2d 8'09:, 5'81 N.• E.2d 105·5 (199·J,: )). ..·:~i, ... The party during communication or ·:. ·~· 1185 (1989). There exiiti a:n ekception, re{erred to as the agency · pri vi'lege ,< w h'ert· Hi h·e·;~;thi td::.party faci ltt a te$ "the rendering '.':· =•,: ·:·. 7 ··~,,; of legal·: a dvice·;· :sucb•· a·s i co:rrtmufricat i0nsnn2fde, by the client to . ;,; .. #' • the· attorney's emp1oyees, i through "an ·, interpreter, or , to 1~ one serving as an agent : of·, e j.tMe:.t · tbe· a tt or.ney ·or .c lient ·. " :Id . .: Si milarly, the common interest privil ege extends the .. l'i attor ney-client privileg e to "protect the confidentiality of communications passing fr om one party to the at t orney for another party where a j oint defens e ef f o rt or strategy has been d e cide d upon and undert a ke n by the par t ies and thei r respe c tive 14  counsel." United States v. Schwi1TUT1er, 892 F.2d 237, 243 (2d Cir. 1989). To show the corrunon interest privilege applies, the party claiming its protection must show the co1TUT1unication was made in the course of the ongoing common enterprise with the intention of furthering that enterprise. Id .. A limited common purpose necessitating disblosure ·is sufficient, and ~a total ' identity of interest '. among -the C:participants is not requir~d under ''J'leW ; Yo.z;-k law. " "GUS Consulting ·. GMEH v. · C::hadbourne · & ''Parke . LLP, 20 Misc: .·-3d 539, 542; · 858 N.Y.S ~ 2d 591; · 593 (Sup. Ct;: 2008). ;"!··· Despite · their shor-thi:i"nd names, , neither th.e agenc;y privilege may only exist to pardon the presumptive w~'fver that would result from disclosure of otherwise privileged attorney-client communications to a third party when that third-party is fLt 'l ·· t ~:· •· . . " '·· included under the umbrella of the agency or comrnon-interes~ doctrines. See U.S. Bank Nat. Ass'n v. APP Int'l Fin. Co., 33 A.D.3d 430, 431, 823 N. Y.S.2d 361, 363 (2006) ("Before a communication can be protected under the co1TUT1on interest rule, the communication must satisfy the requirements of the attorney- client privilege."); Don v. Singer, 19 Misc. 3d 1139 (A), 866 N.Y. S . 2d 91 (Sup. Ct. 2008) ("The attorney-client privilege may extend to th e agent of a client wh e re the communications are 15  intended to facilitate < the p;rovision of lega~ services to the client." . (citations , qnql ir.rt;.ernal quotation ma.rks omitted)) . . i . . . . The party assertJ:J1 9 •;p:rotect.:i;Q.n peFrs · the burden o{ p;rov4,ng ·+ 1'l • ,'{ ,2 9 cat ; 84. b ,;54·9 ,,;N .; § 1'\'?,d .;;it / Ll $.'Y:c•(1q i t .?,t:h:90l;! V9ffii.tJ;eq); " Eg;i,a~Ciryan v ':: •;;Zi?liU~YeV;;L~;~O ~;:~ (J1.,:i:t9'Y ±4~·l-r• 1·;?8 ;~ W.~ Q.:.N. (~ ;~g ~ O ~)J. ~ }~ $uro;h ; shO\,'l~ngs . . ·· ffi,µs t:;.;.Q ~·t b"?se<;i:_:'.9l1•., f,~!1Ul~t~;2.Q®:;~. ~~¥:~/4~:2£~:L:., ~~}:!·~f.~¥f;±!J;·,~p.~9!)'.:J:i3.f!t~glavi-ts' . depos i ti.on test:i,;rtjQ!P:,y/;/:g l.ft±.o~~<?!.'.da~m ~ssj;~~e:h ~v i'.dence :cTg V' (ci,t:i.ng · von Bulow by Auersperg v~ von B~~6w, 811 F.2d 136, 147 (2d · ·i.~i i:;-•..:: ).·:1.;.···1.<?.e l:~~t i·t'.'.¢l~n j;•e..91, ·ti~~::ig~',P ·•·;r1;;'.L;Ehl;~Y .t:HJ;7f";$i•' <;;,p;; ... ~:~:fNNt1 :~9·5.• ·r,'.~ :·:Eld ; .2d · · . . 4 98~ A i .9 8})r;: t:.Bpwne .,;Q~~ ;..;N•:r¥.:l+;.@~~,,r,.r·Irtc;, ;.,, N;_;, , X\m~ai~.~ ,:: co;rp.' ~ '', 1{~0,, __ F ~-·J3. '0 ;;' .: : 4 65 I 47;2::, ( s .D~. N. Y: • .i\iJ,\Q. ~~8 H~ ·.T ;:;· • .. • . t :·· ...~..':"'' .' ·•.; v, { .. :~ ·;':-· ,; :: , . in Part ;.._. =~: '; "' ' Consistent with the afore~entioned standards, to survive .... ·· :;- ·..•. . l • : ; .. the instant motion to compel, Defendant must es tab l ish (1) an ; -: attorney-client relationship ex i sted , (2) the withheld documents contain a communication mad e within the context of that relationsh i p, (3) for . the purpose of obta ining l e gal advic e , a nd (4) the intend e d confident iality of that communication, and (5) 16  maintenance of confid e ntial ity via a lack of waiver or an exception to waiver such as extension via the common interest privilege or the agency privilege. See ~'Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. M.E.S., Inc., 289 F.R.D. 41, 46 (-E";D.N ..Y. ,201,i,) (applying New York law) (citing Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank v. Morgan Stanley, 08 CV 7508 (SAS), 2011 WL 47'16334-; .a t *2 (S.D.N ·. ·Y. Oct. 3; 2011)) . .. J:: 'I ~ i'· '/' "·, ·~ •. t 1.. ·,conununications with Jaffe Are! P.r:tvile~ed ,,. , ',~·· ·"An attorney-client relationship is .r established where there is an explicit undertaking to perform a specific task/ ' .·• ' · Pellegrino v. Oppenheimer &Co., 49 A ~ D.3d 94, 99;; 8$i· N.Y.S.2d 19 (2008). oe .fendant has sworn that she ' hired Jaffe in· 2009 to represent her in connection with a deposition. Maxwell Deel: 1 9. Though Defendant ha s failed to s pecify the · end-date · of Jaffe's representationj the in came ra submissions demonstrate that these communications were made within the context of an ongoing attorney-client relationship for the purpose of providing legal advice re l ated to t he specific task for which Defendant hi red Jaffe . Def e nd a nt i nt ended that the communications remain confident i al. Maxwell Deel. '1l 1 2-13. The communications themselves were so l e ly b e tween attorney and 17 -----------------------------------~--~·--- •>-•········--··· client, :.·demons.tra ting la.ck of waiver. Accordingly, Defendant's sl..ibrni ssions · lH000,~19 .are privileged . .;' . •2 .,.,, G,Qtim\Unicati6ns with .Gow Alone Must Be Produceq. so1el:'y betwE?en Gow .and. Defendant regarding release of a . p\i:J:>Iic; r.e1:at.ton.s stat.e,inent in .response to inquiries · from journalists ., ·. ,; . . De~efida~t ·provides no argument relevant to the application of , · ····p)}.&,;r;t· h!:;!'t;J~::i:::tf o•s, em~'.ll~~"~ r;i.evo;~~d • •9£ ,•·any ' at to rn.ey .;, Cl i:eI1t· ·commu n .t'C"a.t.ibn ·;· ·· · The . only ID.eri.Lion->o'r · ;. .·' ·' 0enteAt'' : :· .. . of a legal . ch$•ra.c ·ter . refers · tE:> ... a\·i~i;·tH1:g+~ c(?ntenv from Barden, indicating . that- a·r1y communic9ti9n:·, w.i:.:t;i )"i .Ba :~den : was · ;tor; the:'pu:tpose of facilitating .. Gowr-. $ public re11:ati6n~ efafiort.s. Regardless, without an attorney-client• totrununi'catd!Ont, to < facilitate., ,it cannot bi:! said that Gow' '. s pre:set'ta:e-'' and ,.. i:nput .· was ".necessary to somehow clarify or improve. comprehension rof Defendant communications .• wit h counsel, as the · standard reguires. ; See Egiaza r yan.1 29 0 F.R.D. at 431..1 As such , ., Defendant argues Egia zarz-9_!2 doe s not apply. Def.' s Supp. Opp. at 9 .. Defendant distinguishes th at case as involving a public relaiions firm , wh ere thi s case involves ~ public relatio n s "agent." Id. As r easo ned inf.i::'.'.! § V(S), the Court does not r ely on Eg~azaryan for the principl e that a public r e l atio n s firm (or agent or spec i alis t) ca nn o t be deemed an agent for purpo s es o f privilege protection. 18 - - - --- ·--- ------~-------- ------- -- - ---------· - - ------ - --- , ___ . Defendant has not met her burden of demonstrating that the communications fall -beneath the umbrella of attorney-client privilege and cannot be rehabilitated by the extension provided by the agency privilege. Defendant must produce the emails in #1020-26. 3. Communications with Gow and Basham Must :ae :P;:-od~ced ' Tliese emails, ' documents #1027-28, are between Defendant and Gow, with ·s~sham CC' d. Basham was therefore a th:i.'rd-party privy to these corrunuhicatd:ons between Defendant ·and · Gow > Defendant hCIS not :identified · Basham.· Therefore, Defendant has failed to :establish an attorney'" client .relationship, an attorney-client communication of a predominately legal character, and lack of waiver. Accordingly, documents #1027-28 are not privileged and Defendant must produce these emails. 4. Comrriunications · with Barden Alone Are Privileged Defendant submits in h er supp l ementa l reply and in camera submissions that these communications, ftl045-51, are non- responsiv e as they c ontain o nly communica tions betw ee n Defendant and Barden and "(n]o other party parti c ipated in t his email 19  ·~, correspondence. 0 • Menninger . Deel.. 'lI 11; Supp. Reply at 5 n. 2 :· i:H 1< Documents .:·#1,045-:4 6 . conta.iri ·c,ommunications · b'e tween Defendant., and B.i',\)7.den:;: · rowe.YeX., .. .documents ;·#.-l04 7-:51· include Gow (and i COntain inf;r~, § · V ( 5), as these documents are responsive to Plaintiff'· s Document Request No. 17.a Defendant's representations of t)1is batch ·b f comrounicatiohs being unclear, the Court address.e s their ' ' · · · •,. , a:t;,t<D¥B e,y;;:''.'.'·· r+ :~,,,·+f~p.'1it'1 mapy;:;cy.e~~r:$·;:;;i n ·conne;q t·i •on . \'J,'i:th:.· potent''i ail ~ j• ii .. - ~:~· ., '· •' •t• 0"': .... ...... M, ••'•' ~, the;;,e m?tte+s L and:~ Ba;r<;ien ·:. con;t inue~»·· to,, repres~ilt her" Mc;i){wel:l · ' DeoJ;. %1ij6 ? ~Defendar,it $Ubmit·S .that ·Barden issued ,a · cease and 8 "Plaintiff's Document Request No. 17: Al l documents relating to communications with [Defendant] and Ross Gow from 2005-Present." Mccawley,, Qecl, iri $.l )PP ,• ...,CorsglidaJ:ed . R~ply. ir,i ,$upp . < Mot. to Compel P~od~ctlon of 'Dbcs '. '' Subject to Impr ope~ ' bi:)'jections an d Improper Claim of Priv., ECF No. 44, Ex. 2, at 9. 9 Defendant has not provided a contract or repr esen tat ion agree~ent to substantiate t~e dates of the relationship, though she ~ l ieges on~ ~xfsis: · ~enriing~r Deel. 'lI 17. Likewise, no material substantiates Barden's role other th~n a l argely blank print-out from th~ Devonshii~s Solicitors w~bsite. Maxwell Deel., Ex. 0. This print-out does not contain Barden's le gal ed~cation, prof~ssional accreditation, or any other explicit indication that he was qualified counsel at the time of the communications other than the implicit logical assumption t ha t 20 ---------------------------------------.- ---.- ·-· desist to British press, though no litigation ever materialized. Maxwell Deel. 'JI 5. Defendant's sworn affidavit, coupled with the content of the communications (including a comment by Barden referring to having been retained by Defendant) are sufficient ~:° e.stablish Barden undertook the specific task for which · Defep¢(il)t, has al;t.~gfi!<) s~.e hired him in sworn affidavit. See .. Pellegrinp, 4 9 A. D;~ ~c:l ..qt 99... It is siz:nilarl,y e~. tabJ,ished