Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves a dispute over the application of attorney-client privilege to a report produced by consultant Cinda Daggett for Chipotle. The plaintiffs sought document production, which Chipotle resisted by claiming privilege over Daggett's report. On March 27, 2015, the Court partially granted the plaintiffs' motion, ruling the report was not privileged as Daggett was not an agent of Chipotle’s legal counsel. Chipotle filed objections and sought relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), introducing new evidence including emails and an unsigned confidentiality agreement. The Court found Chipotle's motion procedurally improper, noting that Rule 60(b) applies only to final judgments, and the discovery order was not final. Substantively, the Court deemed the new evidence insufficient to alter its ruling, as it did not establish that Daggett's report constituted legal advice. The Court also highlighted Chipotle’s failure to meet the 14-day reconsideration deadline under Local Civil Rule 6.3. Consequently, the Court denied Chipotle’s motion to reconsider, maintaining the original order that the Daggett Report was not protected by attorney-client privilege.
Legal Issues Addressed
Attorney-Client Privilege and Consultant Reportssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Court ruled that the Daggett Report was not protected by attorney-client privilege as Cinda Daggett was not an agent of Chipotle's legal counsel.
Reasoning: The Daggett Report was not privileged as consultant Cinda Daggett was not an agent of Chipotle's legal counsel.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) Applicabilitysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Court determined that Rule 60(b) could not be used to challenge the discovery order since it is not a final judgment.
Reasoning: The Court determined Chipotle’s motion was procedurally improper, asserting that Rule 60(b) applies only to final judgments, and since a discovery order regarding attorney-client privilege is not a final judgment, Chipotle could not challenge it under this rule.
Local Civil Rule 6.3 and Reconsideration Deadlinessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Chipotle's application for reconsideration did not comply with the 14-day deadline as stipulated by Local Civil Rule 6.3.
Reasoning: Additionally, Chipotle's application is not compliant with Local Civil Rule 6.3 due to the expiration of the 14-day reconsideration deadline.
Reconsideration of Court Orders and Newly Discovered Evidencesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Chipotle's motion to reconsider was denied as the new evidence presented did not demonstrate privilege or necessitate a change in the original ruling.
Reasoning: The Court noted its power to revisit decisions prior to a final judgment but found Chipotle’s new evidence unpersuasive and upheld the original ruling.