Attorney-Client Privilege Bars Access to Docs in Case Over Barnes & Noble CEO's Ouster
The U.S. magistrate judge did, however, order the bookstore chain to turn over a trove of other documents that he said were unrelated to potential litigation.
October 04, 2019 at 05:19 PM
4 minute read
A federal magistrate judge in Manhattan has rejected a bid by Barnes & Noble's former CEO to gain access to documents prepared by the company's lawyers amid a sexual harassment investigation that led to his ouster.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on Friday said that the documents, prepared by Barnes & Noble's general counsel and outside attorneys, were meant to provide legal advice to the company and were thus protected by the attorney-client privilege.
The U.S. magistrate judge did, however, order the bookstore chain to turn over a trove of other documents that he said were unrelated to potential litigation.
The ruling came in Demos Parneros' breach-of-contract and defamation lawsuit in the Southern District of New York that seeks compensation for his firing last year. Specifically, Parneros had sought documents from Barnes & Noble general counsel Bradley Feuer's investigation into claims levied by an executive assistant, as well as a report by Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, which was presented to the Barnes & Noble board ahead of a June 27 vote to terminate his employment.
Parneros argued in a motion to compel that, because the materials were prepared for business purposes, no privilege attached. But Gorenstein rejected that premise, saying it was clear from the record that Feuer was immediately concerned that the Parneros' accuser could possibly bring claims against the company and quickly engaged the help of outside counsel from Paul Weiss.
"The mere fact that there was a business benefit obtained from conducting the investigation does not detract from the circumstances here indicating that the predominant purpose of the investigation was to gather facts for the general counsel so he could give legal advice to the corporation," Gorenstein wrote in a 37-page opinion.
Other documents, however, lacked similar protections. Gorenstein, who is overseeing privilege-related discovery issues, ordered Barnes & Noble to produce a series of email communications between nonattorney executives, as the company drafted a press release announcing Parneros' firing. According to court filings, Parneros viewed those materials as important to his defamation claim, which alleged that the release had falsely implied that he had engaged in "serious sexual misconduct."
The company, meanwhile, had argued that the documents were protected under the work-product doctrine, which shields from discovery documents prepared "in anticipation of litigation."
"While work product protection is available for non-attorneys even when they act without the direction of an attorney to prepare materials in anticipation of litigation … there is no evidence in the record that any of the individuals who were circulating press releases did so because they anticipated litigation," Gorenstein said. "Accordingly, Barnes & Noble is ordered to produce these documents."
An attorney for Barnes & Noble was not immediately available on Friday to comment, and Parneros' counsel declined to comment on the ruling.
Barnes & Noble has asserted counterclaims against Parneros for breaching his fiduciary duties of loyalty and good faith and for damages for acting as a faithless servant to the company. Discovery is expected to wrap in the case by Oct. 18, and the sides are currently eyeing a potential bench trial in March.
The case, captioned Parneros v. Barnes & Noble, is assigned to U.S. District Judge John G. Koeltl.
Parneros is represented by Debra L. Raskin and Anne L. Clark of Vladeck, Raskin & Clark in New York.
Barnes & Noble is represented by Jay Cohen, Maria Keane, Arianna Markel and Liza May Velazquez of Paul Weiss.
Read More:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllWalmart Accused of Misrepresenting 'Cheese' Ingredients in Great Value's Macaroni & Cheese
3 minute readNY Federal Judge Rules Online-Only Retailers Cannot Face ADA Claims
Morrison Cohen Debuts Luxury Brands Practice as Retailers Navigate Post-Pandemic Landscape
2 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Luigi Mangione's Attorney Gives a Master Class in How Not to Handle a High-Profile Case in the Media
- 2Trump, ABC News Settlement in Defamation Lawsuit Includes $1M in Attorney Fees For President-Elect
- 3Trump, ABC News Settle Defamation Lawsuit Before Depositions
- 4Call for Nominations: The Recorder and Law.com's California Legal Awards 2025
- 5The Week in Data Dec. 13: A Look at Legal Industry Trends by the Numbers
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250