Romulus et al v. The Bank of Nova Scotia
IN THE DISTRICT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN EVELYN ROMULUS AND IVAN CHINNERY, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) CIVIL NO. 10-cv-64 v. ) ) THE BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA, ) ) Defendant. ) __________________________________________) ORDER Before the Court is defendant Scotiabank’s motion for a protective order, seeking to limit the topics to be covered in the deposition of Karen Christensen. Defendant contends Christensen, a former paralegal of Scotiabank’s counsel, communicated with Scotiabank and its employees, was privy to communications between Scotiabank and Scotiabank’s counsel, and was privy to the opinions and strategies of Scotiabank’s counsel. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense. . . .” Whether material is privileged is a matter of federal law and is governed by FRE 501. Attorney-client privilege and the 1 work-product doctrine protect the privileged information within the knowledge and possession of a paralegal. Thus, Fed. R. Civ. P. …
Download the original document · Plain text (TXT) · Browse the archive · How this archive works
Original source: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-vid-3_10-cv-00064/pdf/USCOURTS-vid-3_10-cv-00064-0.pdf
SHA-256 1d71f8775b9fd3dc730cbcf42873ce88a232545dcfe012db50b76a119f4c39cf
Re-using this document
two independent grounds: a work of the United States Government under 17 USC 105, AND a judicial opinion, which is an edict of government and uncopyrightable by anyone including the court that wrote it
Our description, tagging, arrangement, extracted text and machine transcripts are released under CC0 1.0. We assert nothing about the document itself.
Archive identifier LF-1d71f8775b9f
Document text
IN THE DISTRICT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN EVELYN ROMULUS AND IVAN CHINNERY, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) CIVIL NO. 10-cv-64 v. ) ) THE BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA, ) ) Defendant. ) __________________________________________) ORDER Before the Court is defendant Scotiabank’s motion for a protective order, seeking to limit the topics to be covered in the deposition of Karen Christensen. Defendant contends Christensen, a former paralegal of Scotiabank’s counsel, communicated with Scotiabank and its employees, was privy to communications between Scotiabank and Scotiabank’s counsel, and was privy to the opinions and strategies of Scotiabank’s counsel. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense. . . .” Whether material is privileged is a matter of federal law and is governed by FRE 501. Attorney-client privilege and the 1 work-product doctrine protect the privileged information within the knowledge and possession of a paralegal. Thus, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) by its terms already protects any privileged information 2 in possession of Christensen from being disclosed at deposition. Thus, the present motion is See United States v. Liebman, 742 F.2d 807, 809 (3rd Cir. 1984). 1 See Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 395-98 (1981) (attorney-client privilege 2 and work product doctrine protect the work and communications of attorneys); Gould, Inc. v. Alter Metals Co., 1993 WL 394765 at *1 (D. Ill. 1993) (explaining that the work product doctrine covers paralegal work product); Olive v. Isherwood, Hunter & Diehm, 656 F. Supp. 1171, 1173 (D. V.I. 1987) (attorney-client privilege applies to bar member “subordinates” ). Case: 3:10-cv-00064-JRS-RM Document #: 54 Filed: 07/11/11 Page 1 of 2 premature, as no privileged communication or other protected material has yet been sought. Therefore, it is hereby, ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for a protective order is DENIED without prejudice. S\_______________________________ RUTH MILLER United States Magistrate Judge Case: 3:10-cv-00064-JRS-RM Document #: 54 Filed: 07/11/11 Page 2 of 2