Summary
noting that "the attorney-client privilege . . . extend to documents generated by consultants retained by counsel to assist in analyzing or preparing for anticipated litigation"
Summary of this case from Tower 570 Co. v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co.Opinion
2012-03-27
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., et al., Defendants–Appellants.
Goodwin Procter LLP, New York (Mark Holland of counsel), for appellants. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York (Philippe Z. Selendy of counsel), for respondent.
Goodwin Procter LLP, New York (Mark Holland of counsel), for appellants. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York (Philippe Z. Selendy of counsel), for respondent.
SAXE, J.P., SWEENY, RENWICK, DeGRASSE, RICHTER, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered on or about January 28, 2011, which denied defendants' motion to, among other things, compel disclosure of documents and information concerning plaintiff's “remediation efforts,” unanimously affirmed, without costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered July 1, 2011, which, to the extent appealed from, granted plaintiff's motion to, among other things, compel disclosure of documents and information concerning defendants' repurchase review, and denied defendants' cross motion for a protective order preventing such disclosure, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff met its burden of establishing that the documents concerning its remediation efforts were primarily prepared in anticipation of litigation and are, thus, privileged matter ( see JP Foodservice Distribs. v. Sorrento, Inc., 305 A.D.2d 266, 266, 758 N.Y.S.2d 805 [2003]; CPLR 3101[d][2] ). Indeed, plaintiff submitted evidence, including retainer agreements, showing that its counsel retained consultants to help provide legal advice to plaintiff with respect to potential legal claims against defendants. That plaintiff used the facts revealed by the consultants' work to avail itself of its contractual right to demand repurchases does not render the consultants' materials of “mixed purpose,” especially since plaintiff had already paid, and was continuing to pay, the claims that were being investigated by the consultants ( compare Landmark Ins. Co. v. Beau Rivage Rest., 121 A.D.2d 98, 102, 509 N.Y.S.2d 819 [1986], and Chemical Bank v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 70 A.D.2d 837, 838, 418 N.Y.S.2d 23 [1979] ).
Plaintiff also established that the materials are protected by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product privilege ( see CPLR 4503; 3101[c] ), both of which extend to documents generated by consultants retained by counsel “to assist in analyzing or preparing” for anticipated litigation ( Hudson Ins. Co. v. Oppenheim, 72 A.D.3d 489, 489–490, 899 N.Y.S.2d 29 [2010] ).
Plaintiff has not waived any privilege by referencing its repurchase review in its amended complaint. Indeed, plaintiff does not need the privileged materials concerning the review to sustain its causes of action ( Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co. v. Servotronics, Inc., 132 A.D.2d 392, 397, 522 N.Y.S.2d 999 [1987]; see Deutsche Bank Trust Co. of Ams. v. Tri–Links Inv. Trust, 43 A.D.3d 56, 64, 837 N.Y.S.2d 15 [2007] ).
The motion court properly held that documents and information concerning defendants' repurchase review, generated in response to plaintiff's repurchase requests, are discoverable. Plaintiff proved that its repurchase analysis was not a part of its ordinary business. By contrast, the record shows that processing repurchase requests was an inherent and long-standing part of defendants' business ( see Brooklyn Union Gas Co. v. American Home Assur. Co., 23 A.D.3d 190, 191, 803 N.Y.S.2d 532 [2005] ). That a new division was created to respond to plaintiff's repurchase requests, or that litigation appeared imminent, is of no moment; defendants were, and always had been, contractually obligated to conduct repurchase reviews and such reviews were, and always had been, conducted by defendants' own staff of underwriters and auditors ( see e.g. 148 Magnolia, LLC v. Merrimack Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 62 A.D.3d 486, 487, 878 N.Y.S.2d 727 [2009]; Rosario v. North Gen. Hosp., 40 A.D.3d 323, 835 N.Y.S.2d 181 [2007] ).