Lyman v. Ford Motor Co.
Lyman v. Ford Motor Co.
2023 WL 5992742 (E.D. Mich. 2023)
September 14, 2023

Stafford, Elizabeth A.,  United States Magistrate Judge

Attorney-Client Privilege
Privilege Log
Redaction
In Camera Review
Download PDF
To Cite List
Summary
The Court ordered Ford to submit unredacted documents for an in camera review and found that the redacted portions of the documents were not privileged. Ford was unable to establish that the redacted portions of the documents were privileged, and the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion to compel documents related to Ford's privilege log. Ford was ordered to produce unredacted copies of the documents by September 27, 2023.
Additional Decisions
David LYMAN, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant
Case No. 21-10024
United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Filed September 14, 2023

Counsel

Brian Johnson, Victoria S. Nugent, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC District of Columbia, Washington, DC, Dana Fraser, Dennis A. Lienhardt, Sharon S. Almonrode, E. Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm, P.C., Rochester, MI, Geoff Stahl, Steven G. Calamusa, Gordon & Partners, PA, Palm Beach Gardens, FL, Theodore J. Leopold, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Palm Beach Gardens, FL, Jon Herskowitz, Baron & Herskowitz, Miami, FL, Joseph Kenney, Matthew D. Schelkopf, Sauder Schelkopf LLC, Berwyn, PA, Rebecca P. Chang, Handley Farah & Anderson PLLC, New York, NY, William H. Anderson, Handley Farah & Anderson PLLC, Boulder, CO, William Kalas, Foley & Lardner LLP, Detroit, MI, for Plaintiffs David Lyman, Vincent Brady.
Brian Johnson, Washington, DC, Douglas James McNamara, Victoria S. Nugent, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC District of Columbia, Washington, DC, Dana Fraser, Dennis A. Lienhardt, Sharon S. Almonrode, E. Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm, P.C., Rochester, MI, Geoff Stahl, Steven G. Calamusa, Gordon & Partners, PA, Palm Beach Gardens, FL, Theodore J. Leopold, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Palm Beach Gardens, FL, Jon Herskowitz, Baron & Herskowitz, Miami, FL, Joseph Kenney, Matthew D. Schelkopf, Sauder Schelkopf LLC, Berwyn, PA, Rebecca P. Chang, Handley Farah & Anderson PLLC, New York, NY, William H. Anderson, Handley Farah & Anderson PLLC, Boulder, CO, William Kalas, Foley & Lardner LLP, Detroit, MI, for Plaintiff Timothy Thuering.
Brian Johnson, Douglas James McNamara, Victoria S. Nugent, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC District of Columbia, Washington, DC, Dana Fraser, Dennis A. Lienhardt, E. Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm, P.C., Rochester, MI, Geoff Stahl, Rachel Bentley, Gordon & Partners, PA, Palm Beach Gardens, FL, Jon Herskowitz, Baron & Herskowitz, Miami, FL, Joseph Kenney, Matthew D. Schelkopf, Sauder Schelkopf LLC, Berwyn, PA, Rebecca P. Chang, Handley Farah & Anderson PLLC, New York, NY, William H. Anderson, Handley Farah & Anderson PLLC, Boulder, CO, William Kalas, Foley & Lardner LLP, Detroit, MI, for Plaintiffs John Wiley, Marc Baus, Ronnie Swindell, Thermon Stacy, Dennis Gabel, Gordon McCardy.
Brian Johnson, Victoria S. Nugent, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC District of Columbia, Washington, DC, Dana Fraser, Dennis A. Lienhardt, E. Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm, P.C., Rochester, MI, Geoff Stahl, Rachel Bentley, Gordon & Partners, PA, Palm Beach Gardens, FL, Jon Herskowitz, Baron & Herskowitz, Miami, FL, Joseph Kenney, Matthew D. Schelkopf, Sauder Schelkopf LLC, Berwyn, PA, Rebecca P. Chang, Handley Farah & Anderson PLLC, New York, NY, William H. Anderson, Handley Farah & Anderson PLLC, Boulder, CO, William Kalas, Foley & Lardner LLP, Detroit, MI, for Plaintiffs Judson Wessbecher, James Rittmanic, Richard Shawley, Michelle Shawley.
Brian Johnson, Douglas James McNamara, Victoria S. Nugent, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC District of Columbia, Washington, DC, Dana Fraser, Dennis A. Lienhardt, E. Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm, P.C., Rochester, MI, Geoff Stahl, Gordon & Partners, PA, Palm Beach Gardens, FL, Jon Herskowitz, Baron & Herskowitz, Miami, FL, Joseph Kenney, Matthew D. Schelkopf, Sauder Schelkopf LLC, Berwyn, PA, Rebecca P. Chang, Handley Farah & Anderson PLLC, New York, NY, William H. Anderson, Handley Farah & Anderson PLLC, Boulder, CO, William Kalas, Foley & Lardner LLP, Detroit, MI, for Plaintiff Jason Pierce.
Dennis A. Lienhardt, E. Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm, P.C., Rochester, MI, Douglas James McNamara, Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC, Washington, DC, Rebecca P. Chang, Handley Farah & Anderson PLLC, New York, NY, William H. Anderson, Handley Farah & Anderson PLLC, Boulder, CO, for Plaintiffs John Herold, David Flynn, Dana Herold.
Cari Katrice Dawson, Elizabeth Broadway Brown, Jamie Smith George, Jason Robert Rottner, Alston & Bird Litigation and Trial, Atlanta, GA, Jeffrey A. Turner, Stephanie A. Douglas, Susan M. McKeever, Bush Seyferth Paige, Troy, MI, Kathleen S. Corpus, Shannon L.H. Phillips, Bowman and Brooke LLP, Troy, MI, Tina Ngo, Alston & Bird, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant.
Stafford, Elizabeth A., United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DOCMENTS RELATED TO DEFENDANT'S PRIVILEGE LOG (ECF NO. 107)

*1 Plaintiffs moved to compel documents related to warranty codes and Defendant Ford Motor Company's privilege log. ECF No. 107. The Honorable Gershwin A. Drain referred all pretrial matters to the undersigned under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). ECF No. 148. The Court will address the portion of the motion related to the warranty codes during a hearing on October 3, 2023. See ECF No. 156. As to the privilege log, the Court ordered Ford to submit the unredacted documents at issue for an in camera review. ECF No. 151. Having completed its review, the Court finds that the redacted portions of the documents are not privileged.
The attorney-client privilege exists to “encourage full and frank communication between attorneys and their clients and thereby promote broader public interests in the observance of law and administration of justice.” Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 389 (1981). It applies:
(1) Where legal advice of any kind is sought (2) from a professional legal adviser in his capacity as such, (3) the communications relating to that purpose, (4) made in confidence (5) by the client, (6) are at his instance permanently protected (7) from disclosure by himself or by the legal adviser, (8) except the protection be waived.
United States v. Goldfarb, 328 F.2d 280, 281 (6th Cir. 1964) (quoting 8 J. Wigmore, Evidence in Trials at Common Law § 2292, at 554 (McNaughton rev. 1961)). “[T]he privilege is narrowly construed because it reduces the amount of information discoverable during the course of a lawsuit.” United States v. Collis, 128 F.3d 313, 320 (6th Cir. 1997). Ford bears the burden of establishing that the redacted portions of the documents were privileged. In re Grand Jury Investigation No. 83-2-35, 723 F.2d 447, 450 (6th Cir. 1983) (“The burden of establishing the existence of the privilege rests with the person asserting it.”).
The documents at issue are communications between its non-attorney employees. Ford rightly notes that, “[i]n the corporate context, the attorney-client privilege extends to communications, between non-attorney employees, made to obtain or relay legal advice.” McCall v. Procter & Gamble Co., No. 1:17-CV-406, 2019 WL 3997375, at *4 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 22, 2019). But for the attorney-client privilege to apply, the communication between the non-attorneys must relay information that falls within the privilege. The communication must either “relay information requested by attorneys” or be “transmitted between non-attorneys (especially individuals involved in corporate decision-making) so that the corporation may be properly informed of legal advice and act appropriately.” Graff v. Haverhill N. Coke Co., No. 1:09-CV-670, 2012 WL 5495514, at *7–8 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 13, 2012) (cleaned up).
The redacted information in the documents at issue relays no communication requested by an attorney nor includes communication for an attorney to consider for giving legal advice. Rather, the redacted portions merely refer to legal counsel, and the existence of legal counsel is not privileged. “The attorney-client privilege only precludes disclosure of communications between attorney and client and does not protect against disclosure of the facts underlying the communication. In general, the fact of legal consultation or employment, clients’ identities, attorney's fees, and the scope and nature of employment are not deemed privileged.” Humphreys, Hutcheson & Moseley v. Donovan, 755 F.2d 1211, 1219 (6th Cir. 1985) (cleaned up, emphasis in original).
*2 The Court thus GRANTS plaintiffs’ motion to compel documents related to Ford's privilege log and ORDERS Ford to produce unredacted copies of the documents by September 27, 2023.
IT IS SO ORDERED.