United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division
Parrish, District Judge.
MEMORADUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS'
SHORT FORM DISCOVERY MOTION RE REDACTED EMAIL
C. Wells, United States Magistrate Judge.
the undersigned is Defendants' Short Form Discovery
Motion Regarding Redacted Email Messages. The court ordered
in camera production of the emails and compared the unredacted
emails to those that have been produced with the redacted
portions. Having conducted its review, the court finds the
redacted portions need not be produced and therefore denies
Defendants short form discovery motion.
seek the complete unredacted production of four emails
Plaintiff claims are privileged and therefore should be
redacted. Specifically, they are marked as:
produced these emails in redacted form and argues two of the
emails contain “information regarding another client of
Plaintiff's then attorney, and thus [are] not subject to
disclosure.” Specifically, Email 1 and 64 contain
information regarding another client. The court has reviewed
these emails and agrees with Plaintiff. The redacted portions
pertain to other individuals not involved in this case and
therefore are irrelevant and need not be produced.
Plaintiff asserts some of the information contained within
the other two emails, labeled as Emails 21 and 22, is work
product and thus entitled to protection. This includes some
“case strategy and potential settlement
outcomes.” The work product doctrine, as first
articulated by the Supreme Court in Hickman v. Taylor,
codified in F.R.C.P. 26(b)(3). It is designed to balance the
demands of the adversary system by preserving the privacy an
attorney's preparations for trial while still allowing
discovery by the opposing party. In order for materials to be
protected under the doctrine, they must be “prepared in
anticipation of litigation or for trial . . .
.” Materials prepared with mixed purposes,
such as a litigation and business purpose, are protected only
if “the primary motivating purpose behind the creation
of the [materials was] to assist in pending or impending
Rule 26(b)(3) work product includes documents and
“tangible things” prepared in anticipation of
litigation or trial by a party or its representatives
including a “consultant, surety, indemnitor, insurer,
or agent. . . .” But if these representatives are
collecting or compiling information that existed in the
regular course of business protections under the work product
doctrine are questionable.
court has reviewed the redacted portions and finds they are
work product and contain materials prepared in anticipation
of litigation. Therefore, they need not be produced.
the redacted portions irrelevant and protected by the work
product doctrine, the court DENIES Defendants' Short Form