291 F.R.D. 209
N.D. Ill.2013Background
- RBS Citizens, N.A. sues multiple Dunkin Donuts franchise entities and individuals on loan and guaranty agreements.
- Defendants counter-claim with fraud theories and statutory claims, and raise various defenses.
- Key evidentiary disputes concern Kadwani, the Husains’ accountant, and disclosure timing.
- RBS moved to exclude Kadwani’s testimony; discovery had extended deadlines and late disclosures.
- Defendants moved to compel production of redacted or withheld documents, contesting privilege and relevance.
- Court granted Kadwani exclusion and partially granted/denied Defendants’ motion to compel, with in-camera privilege review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kadwani’s belated disclosure warrants exclusion | RBS argues untimely disclosure prejudices discovery and deposition planning. | Defendants claim late disclosure was harmless and Kadwani had relevant knowledge. | Kadwani’s testimony excluded under Rule 37/26 timing. |
| Whether RBS properly asserted attorney-client/work product privileges over documents | RBS asserts broad privileges to protect confidential communications and preparatory materials. | Defendants contend logs are inadequate and redactions conceal non-responsive or irrelevant materials. | Privilege claims narrowed; only some documents protected; in-camera review required; many materials not privileged. |
| Whether RBS’s privilege log was adequate to support claims of privilege | RBS maintained a comprehensive privilege log for contested documents. | Log descriptions lacked detail (authors, recipients, purposes), hindering assessment of privilege. | Privilege log deemed inadequate; many entries not sufficiently described. |
| Whether redacted documents should be produced given relevance | Redactions preserve confidentiality; some information may be non-responsive. | Non-responsive and relevant information about other borrowers should be produced for defenses. | Redactions allowed where non-responsive; one improper withholding identified; other redactions permitted with context preserved. |
| Whether the court should compel production of additional documents | Documents within privilege/work product scope or non-responsive items should be produced. | Documents outside specific requests or clearly non-responsive need not be produced. | RBS ordered to produce certain disputed non-privileged items; other redactions to ensure context. |
Key Cases Cited
- Salgado by Salgado v. Gen. Motors Corp., 150 F.3d 735 (7th Cir. 1998) (Rule 37(c) exclusion for failure to disclose; harmlessness standard.)
- Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (U.S. 1981) (Attorney-client privilege rooted in confidential communications for legal advice.)
- In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 220 F.3d 568 (7th Cir. 2000) (Attorney-client privilege scope and confidentiality requirements.)
- Acosta v. Target Corp., 281 F.R.D. 314 (N.D. Ill. 2012) (Corporate privilege burden; distinguishing legal from business documents.)
- Logan v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 96 F.3d 971 (7th Cir. 1996) (Work product purpose and preparation in anticipation of litigation.)