Bethea v. Merchants Commercial Bank et al
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS JIMMY BETHEA, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 11-51 ) MERCHANTS COMMERCIAL BANK, ) et al., ) ) Defendants. ) AMBROSE, U.S. Senior District Judge OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Per my Order dated October 31, 2012 (ECF No. [406]), Defendant Merchants Commercial Bank (“MCB”) submitted documents designated as MCB 1001, 1015, 1167, 1172, 1249, 1254, 1270, 1275, 1282, and 1454 for in camera review. Having carefully reviewed the communications for which MCB claims attorney-client privilege,1 I find as follows: 1. I DENY Plaintiff’s motion to compel for the following documents: 1001, 1015, 1172, 1249, 1282, & 1454. Accordingly, MCB does not need to disclose the redacted communications for these documents. 2. I GRANT Plaintiff’s motion to compel and MCB must produce the redacted communications as follows: a. 1167 – the information redacted at the second bullet under Section VI. …
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_11-cv-00051/pdf/USCOURTS-vid-3_11-cv-00051-7.pdf
SHA-256 8cb4fcdfc5aeed4078a20398184fabc18d49b46a1921a3cb32afbc6ff37d96a1
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-8cb4fcdfc5ae
Document text
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS JIMMY BETHEA, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 11-51 ) MERCHANTS COMMERCIAL BANK, ) et al., ) ) Defendants. ) AMBROSE, U.S. Senior District Judge OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Per my Order dated October 31, 2012 (ECF No. [406]), Defendant Merchants Commercial Bank (“MCB”) submitted documents designated as MCB 1001, 1015, 1167, 1172, 1249, 1254, 1270, 1275, 1282, and 1454 for in camera review. Having carefully reviewed the communications for which MCB claims attorney-client privilege,1 I find as follows: 1. I DENY Plaintiff’s motion to compel for the following documents: 1001, 1015, 1172, 1249, 1282, & 1454. Accordingly, MCB does not need to disclose the redacted communications for these documents. 2. I GRANT Plaintiff’s motion to compel and MCB must produce the redacted communications as follows: a. 1167 – the information redacted at the second bullet under Section VI. 1 The documents produced by MCB also contain communications redacted for reasons other than a claim of attorney-client privilege. Because I ruled on the production of this information in my October 25, 2012 Order, I focus only on the redactions concerning a claim of attorney-client privilege here. Case: 3:11-cv-00051-DWA Document #: 423 Filed: 11/15/12 Page 1 of 2 2 b. 1254 – the redacted information under Section III, “Office Lease.” c. 1270 – the information at Section II under the second paragraph of the subsection titled “Liquidity Ratio.” d. 1275 – the information redacted in the last paragraph of the page. The information in the second full paragraph may remain redacted. AND ON this 15th day of November, 2012, it is so Ordered. BY THE COURT: /s/ Donetta W. Ambrose Donetta W. Ambrose Senior Judge, U.S. District Court Case: 3:11-cv-00051-DWA Document #: 423 Filed: 11/15/12 Page 2 of 2