The Court read and considered the following papers in rendering its decision regarding this motion: 1. NYSCEF Doc. No. 29, Stipulation and Order Regarding Claimant’s Proposed Subpoena to Kings County District Attorney’s Office, received 01/03/2024; 2. NYSCEF Doc. No. 30, Judicial Subpoena Duces Tecum, received 01/03/2024; 3. NYSCEF Doc. No. 45, Affirmation of Joel B. Rudin, Esq. Showing Cause Why Defendant Should Be Prohibited From Obtaining Attorney-Client Communication and Attorney Work Product, with Exhibits 1 through 8, received 10/09/2024; 4. NYSCEF Doc. No. 48, Defendant’s Ex. A, received 10/11/2024; 5. NYSCEF Doc. No. 49, Defendant’s Ex. B, received 10/11/2024; 6. NYSCEF Doc. No. 52, Amended Affirmation of Defendant Showing Cause To Compel Document Production, received 10/15/2024; 7. NYSCEF Doc. No. 53, Defendant Opposition to Claimant Affirmation Showing Cause for Protective Order, received 10/23/2024; 8. NYSCEF Doc. No. 54, Affirmation of Joel B. Rudin, Esq. Responding to Defendant’s Amended Affirmation Seeking Production of Attorney-Client Communication and Attorney Work Product, received 10/23/2024; 9. NYSCEF Doc. No. 55, Reply in Further Support of Defendant Affirmation Showing Cause to Compel Document Production by Antonella Papeleo, Assistant Attorney General, received 11/06/2024; 10. NYSCEF Doc. No. 56, Reply Affirmation of Joel B. Rudin, Esq. Showing Cause Why Defendant Should Be Prohibited From Obtaining Attorney-Client Communication and Attorney Work Product, received 11/06/2024; and 11. NYSCEF Doc. No. 58, portion of letter in dispute authored by Joel B. Rudin, Esq. to Mr. Perkins, submitted to the Court at its request for in camera review, received 11/27/2024. DECISION AND ORDER Background of the Dispute On or about January 3, 2024, the Court signed a Judicial Subpoena Duces Tecum and Stipulation and Order1 concerning the subpoena that addressed the production of documents by Kings County District Attorney’s Office (KCDAO) to the parties.2 (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 29 and 30.) In relevant part, these documents outlined the materials demanded and the timeframe over which the KCDAO would produce the records related to People v. Donnell Perkins and People v. Kareem Mayo. The stipulation and order provided for a rolling production scheduled to conclude within six months. It is the Court’s understanding that the KCDAO has produced the materials demanded. However, KCDAO only provided the documents to claimant’s counsel.3 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 52 at 4, 10.) Among the more than 50,000 pages of documents provided by KCDAO to the claimant was a letter — or, more accurately, an image of a portion of a letter — authored by Mr. Joel Rudin, Mr. Perkins’ counsel, addressed to Mr. Perkins. (NYSCEF Doc. No. 45 at 1, 2; 2-3,
7-9; 24-27.) As described by Mr. Rudin, the underlying letter was sent in August 2017 to Mr. Perkins while he was still incarcerated and his case was under review by KCDAO’s Conviction Review Unit (CRU). (Id. at 2 7; 24-27.) The portion of the letter included in KCDAO’s production is described as an image of three paragraphs of the original letter. (Id. at 3 9.) The three paragraphs provided Mr. Perkins with an update from Mr. Rudin concerning the status of the CRU investigation and Mr. Rudin’s “opinions and thought processes about our legal strategy and about some of the evidence and potential evidence in the case.” (Id.) This three-paragraph portion of the letter appeared in KCDAO’s production in eight places. (Id. 10.) Upon receipt of this portion of the letter from KCDAO, claimant’s counsel promptly wrote to KCDAO asking that they conduct an investigation to learn how the letter came into KCDAO’s possession. (Id. at 4, 12; 6, 16.) When claimant provided KCDAO’s document production to defendant, rather than forwarding the entire production, claimant first redacted the eight pages where this three-paragraph portion of the letter appeared. (NYSCEF Doc. No. 52 at 5, 11; NYSCEF Doc. No. 45 at 3-4, 10.) Claimant asserted that the documents withheld were protected from disclosure because they contained privileged attorney-client communications and attorney work product and were therefore not discoverable. (NYSCEF Doc. No. 45 at 3, 8; 4,
