Opinion
Case No. 6:04-cv-1714-Orl-22KRS.
April 5, 2006
ORDER
This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion filed herein:
MOTION: ALEXANDER ALEXANDER N/K/A AON RISK SERVICES, INC. OF GEORGIA'S MOTION TO COMPEL (Doc. No. 55)
FILED: March 29, 2006
Defendant Alexander Alexander n/k/a AON Risk Services, Inc. of Georgia (AON) took the deposition of the records custodian for Allen Vasquez, P.A., n/k/a Allen Murphy, P.A., a law firm that is not a party to this case. J. Scott Murphy, an attorney with Allen Murphy, P.A., represents Plaintiff Todd M. Fuggi in this case.
The notice of deposition required the records custodian to produce various documents at the deposition. Doc. No. 55-2. During the deposition, Mr. Murphy, acting as counsel for Allen Murphy, P.A., indicated that various responsive documents were being withheld as privileged. AON now seeks to compel Allen Murphy, P.A., to produce the withheld documents.
Because Allen Murphy, P.A., has the burden of presenting proof supporting its claim of privilege, it is ORDERED that Allen Murphy, P.A., shall file and serve with its response to the motion a privilege log describing the withheld documents, and portions thereof. The privilege log must identify each document, or portion thereof, withheld pursuant to a claim of privilege or protection by date, author, recipients (including recipients of copies), specific privilege or protection claimed and shall describe the subject matter of each document in sufficient detail to permit opposing counsel and the Court to assess the applicability of the claimed privilege or protection. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(5); Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(d)(2); Golden Trade, S.r.L. v. Lee Apparel Co., Nos. 90 Civ. 6291 (JMC), 90 Civ. 6292 (JMC) and 92 Civ. 1667 (JMC), 1992 WL 367070, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 1992) (quoting von Bulow v. von Bulow, 811 F.2d 136, 146 (2d Cir. 1987)).
It is further ORDERED that Allen Murphy, P.A., shall file and serve with its response to the instant motion an appendix containing each "affidavit, deposition testimony, other sworn statements, or other evidence" upon which they rely to support each element of each asserted privilege or protection in dispute. See CSX Transp., Inc. v. Admiral Ins. Co., No. 93-132-CIV-J-10, 1995 WL 855421, at *5 (M.D. Fla. July 20, 1995). This appendix shall be organized so that the evidence submitted in support of the privilege or protection asserted is specifically correlated with the document to which the evidence applies.
No party may submit documents for the Court's in camera review, unless the Court issues a subsequent order requesting such submissions. See id. (court not required to undertake in camera review of documents when proponent of work product doctrine has failed to meet its burden of presenting sufficient evidentiary support for application of the protection.).
DONE and ORDERED.