B. Information and Documents Relating to Defendant's Presentation to HUD
On June 10, 2004, M & T met with HUD and made a presentation regarding its investigation into plaintiff's allegations. Previously, plaintiff sought the production of a PowerPoint presentation that was used in that meeting. On April 15, 2005, Judge Kessler ruled, by minute order, that, even though the PowerPoint presentation constituted attorney work-product, M & T had waived work product protection by presenting it to HUD and, therefore, ordered it produced. Pls. Mem., Exh. C. Plaintiff now moves the Court to compel the production of documents and deposition testimony relating to M & T's investigation and underlying the PowerPoint presentation that M & T has withheld under claims of work product protection. Plaintiff argues that the work product doctrine does not shield this discovery for two reasons: (1) the investigation was not work product; and (2) that, even if it was work product, M & T waived protection by presenting the results of the investigation to HUD at the June 10, 2004 meeting. Specifically, plaintiff seeks a complete response to each of the following document requests:
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 38: All documents referenced, mentioned, discussed or otherwise identified in the document entitled “M & T Mortgage Corporation Meeting with HUD,” M & T 010853–010867 (the “HUD Presentation”).
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 40: All documents related to or constituting the witness interviews quoted, discussed, identified or disclosed in the HUD Presentation, including without limitation the three interviews described or quoted at p. 7 of the document.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 41: All documents concerning, evidencing or relating to the June 10, 2004 meeting with HUD, including without limitation, any notes taken at the meeting.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 42: All documents concerning and evidencing or relating to M & T's representation that it “reiterated M & T policy, prohibiting such activities to all originations and post-closing staff” as stated in the HUD Presentation, including any documents that constitute or describe such “M & T policy[.]”
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 43: All documents concerning, evidencing or relating to the investigation (including any findings and/or conclusions) conducted by Buchanan Ingersoll as referenced on page 5 of the HUD Presentation.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 45: All documents that support or are related to your statement that “interview results universally confirm the non-critical nature of documents in question” as stated on page 10 of the HUD Presentation.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 48: All documents identifying the three employees/ex-employees described on p. 7 of the HUD Presentation.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 50: All documents related to or constituting the “reviews completed to date” or the [“i]nternal file review” described on p. 8 of the HUD Presentation.
DOCUMENT REQUEST NO. 51: All “audit results for other areas” as described at p. 11 of the HUD Presentation.
Pls. Mem. at 9–11. In addition, plaintiff seeks deposition testimony regarding “the identity of the M & T employees who admitted to forging documents,” as referenced in the PowerPoint presentation. Id.