TIGI Linea Corp v. Pro. Prods. Grp., LLC, No. 4:19-CV-840, 2021 WL 2662236, at *4 (E.D. Tex. June 29, 2021) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)).

The Court concludes Ramos has met his burden as to the redacted portions of the April 2023 workers' compensation LLN. The document's relevance is shown by the fact that Defendants produced it in response to Ramos's interrogatory asking Defendants to identify documents they reviewed related to the uninsured motorist's liability and insured status, Ramos's damages, and “the decision to deny Plaintiff's uninsured/underinsured insurance claim.” Pl. Mem. [150] at 4. And lifting the redactions is proportional to the needs of the case. Indeed, the only possible burden Defendants identify would be to the workers' compensation carrier—a non-party to this lawsuit that already turned over an unredacted version of the document to Defendants. This portion of Ramos's motion is granted. The Court directs Defendants to produce, on or before March 5, 2025, an unredacted version of the document Bates labeled DEFENDANTS 007558–59.

Defendants' privilege log for the remaining redactions to the June LLN “states that [the document] was authored by handling claims adjuster Michelle Holiday-Crandall and sent to her superior, Dan Urankar.” Pl. Mem. [150] at 6. The privilege log describes the privilege governing the redactions as “Attorney/Client privilege.” Id. And while both Holiday-Crandall and Urankar “have law degrees, neither of them acted as an attorney in this case.” Id.

Defendants respond by explaining that the redacted portion of the LLN memorializes “privileged communications from counsel for ... Defendants.” Defs. Mem [153]. Having reviewed the contents of the redacted portion in camera, the undersigned concludes that the final sentence of the redacted paragraph does indeed report legal advice defense counsel gave the LLN's author(s). See Hodges, Grant & Kaufmann v. U.S. Gov't, Dep't of the Treasury, IRS, 768 F.2d 719, 720 (5th Cir. 1985) (“The [attorney-client] privilege ... protects communications from the lawyer to his client, at least if they would tend to disclose the client's confidential communications.” (footnote omitted)).[3] That sentence is privileged.

*4 It is unclear, however, whether the first four sentences of the redacted paragraph memorialize a privileged communication to or from counsel—the Court simply cannot tell. Perhaps Defendants could have submitted a declaration from the LLN's author(s) that would have shown that the entire paragraph is subject to the attorney-client privilege. But based on the contents of the rest of the paragraph, it appears to the Court that the redacted information may represent facts known to the LLN's author(s), which are not privileged “merely because [they] incorporated a statement of such fact into [their] communication to [their] attorney.” Adams v. Mem'l Hermann, 973 F.3d 343, 349 (5th Cir. 2020) (quoting Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 396 (1981)). On the current record, the Court concludes Defendants have not met their burden to show that the first four redacted sentences on the June 2024 LLN are privileged. See BDO USA, 876 F.3d at 695 (“Determining the applicability of the [attorney-client] privilege is a ‘highly fact-specific’ inquiry, and the party asserting the privilege bears the burden of proof.” (quoting Stoffels v. SBC Commc'ns, Inc., 263 F.R.D. 406, 411 (W.D. Tex. 2009)). The Court directs Defendants to produce, on or before March 5, 2025, a version of the document Bates labeled DEFENDANTS 007554–55 in which only the final sentence of the redacted paragraph remains redacted.

C. Dates for Lacy Deposition

The next dispute concerns scheduling the deposition of Cheryl Lacy. Defendants have offered March 4 and 6 as dates for Lacy's deposition, but Ramos says his lead counsel will be in trial in another matter the entire week of March 3. Ramos therefore asks the Court to order Defendants “to provide other available dates for Ms. Lacy's deposition that are not during the week of March 3rd.” Pl. Mem. [150] at 10.

Defendants again begin by arguing that “[t]he Court did not conduct a conference concerning the March 4 and 6 dates offered for the Cheryl Lacy deposition and did not authorize a motion to compel to be filed on that topic.” Defs. Mem. [153] at 3. Defendants are overlooking the big picture. On February 5, the Court conducted its first discovery conference concerning deposition dates for Lacy. This followed Ramos's January 22 letter asking for deposition dates for Lacy, to which Ramos claimed Defendants failed to respond. During the February 5 discovery conference, Defendants stated they had not obtained dates for Lacy because Ramos's January 22 letter requested dates for multiple witnesses, the total request exceeded the maximum number of witnesses Ramos is allowed to depose, and Defendants were unsure which of the several witnesses Ramos wished to be his tenth (final allowed) deposition. Ramos selected Lacy for this final deposition, and the parties represented to the Court they would work together to set it as soon as possible. When the parties again asked to confer with the Court on February 14, Defendants had not yet provided depositions dates to Ramos for Lacy. During that conference, Defendants represented that they had a call with Lacy scheduled for February 17 and would provide dates to Ramos after that. The Court authorized Ramos to move to compel if Defendants failed to provide dates by February 19. So while the actual dates Defendants later provided—and Ramos's counsel's conflict with them—were not specifically discussed, the issue was sufficiently raised to permit Ramos's motion. Moreover, it is unclear why Defendants waited until 12 days after the February 5 conference to obtain deposition dates from Lacy when it was represented to the Court the deposition would be set as soon as possible. Whether her deposition could have been set sooner had Defendants contacted Lacy earlier than February 17 is unclear.

Turning to the merits, Defendants say that while Ramos's lead counsel will be in trial next week, Ramos has not shown why either of his other two attorneys of record cannot adequately cover Lacy's deposition. As Defendants correctly note, it is regrettable that Ramos's lead counsel “has a trial the last week of discovery, [but] that is what the schedule provides.” Defs. Mem. [153] at 5. In rebuttal, Ramos says that lead counsel is Ramos's “trial attorney,” and he “should be permitted to have his trial attorney depose the limited number of witnesses allowed during this compressed discovery period.” Pl. Rebuttal [156] at 10.

*5 At this point, there's almost no time to schedule Lacy's deposition within the discovery period unless one of Ramos's other attorneys covers the deposition next week or all parties are available to schedule the deposition for March 10. Ramos offers the latter as an option, and it's not clear whether Lacy is available for a deposition on March 10. Perhaps this scheduling problem could have been avoided had Defendants acted more diligently in obtaining dates for Lacy. It should not have been necessary to again discuss the lack of dates for Lacy at the February 14 conference following the conference on February 5. If the deposition can be taken by video conference that day, the Court orders the parties to go forward on March 10. If March 10 is not feasible, the Court orders Defendants to make Lacy available for a video-conference deposition on either March 11 or 12. Lacy's deposition shall be the only discovery permitted after the March 10 discovery deadline.

D. Unredacted Holiday-Crandall Claim Notes

Finally, Plaintiff asks the Court to compel Defendants to produce unredacted copies of claims notes written by Michelle Holiday-Crandall. Defendants are correct that Ramos failed to discuss this issue in a telephonic discovery conference with the undersigned before including it in his motion. In rebuttal Ramos explains that Holiday-Crandall was deposed after the February 14 discovery conference and “the issue of redactions made to her claims notes” arose at her deposition. Pl. Rebuttal [156] at 3–4. It is not entirely clear to the Court when Defendants first served a privilege log concerning these notes, but the Court has repeatedly addressed concerns about the sufficiency of Defendants' privilege logs—including as recently as February 14. Additionally, the log attached to Ramos's motion is dated February 19, which indicates it was perhaps the outstanding log addressed on February 14. To be clear, Defendants should have promptly served a log with their production. “To withhold materials without such notices subjects the withholding party to sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 and may be viewed as a waiver of the privilege or protection.” See L.U. Civ. R. 26(e). This issue is not squarely before the Court, but it bears mentioning because Defendants criticize Ramos's compliance with the Local Rules. Although time is short, Ramos should have scheduled a discovery conference with the Court on this issue. Nevertheless, because this portion of the motion will be denied on the merits, the Court will address it.

Defendants explain that the claims notes in question span the period from May 2023 to November 2024—after this suit was filed. And, as confirmed by the undersigned's in camera review, each redaction memorializes the contents of Holiday-Crandall's (and then, beginning November 12, 2024, adjuster Michael Jones's) conversations with counsel representing Hartford in this case about the litigation itself. While it may be unusual that Defendants were still adjusting the claim after litigation began, the redacted notes are subject to the attorney-client privilege.[4] Defendants need not lift the redactions; this portion of Ramos's motion is denied.

IV. Conclusion

The Court has considered all arguments. Those not directly addressed would not have changed the outcome. For the foregoing reasons, Ramos's Motion to Compel [149] is granted as to the redactions to the April 2023 workers' compensation LLN and a portion of the redaction of the June 2024 LLN. It is further granted to the extent that the parties are directed to schedule Lacy's deposition for March 10 if feasible. If not, Defendants shall make Lacy available for a deposition on March 11 or 12. Only Lacy's deposition may take place beyond the March 10 discovery deadline. The motion is otherwise denied. Defendants' request for an award of attorney's fees is likewise denied.

*6 SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 28th day of February, 2025.