Southern Gardens Citrus Processing Corporation v. Barnes Richardson & Colburn, 2:11-cv-00377

This case involves a motion to compel discovery from defendants in two related Florida cases (Southern Gardens Processing Corp. and A. Duda & Sons, Inc. v. Barnes Richardson & Colburn and Matthew T. McGrath).
Plaintiffs seek production of otherwise privileged emails identified in defendants’ privilege logs (Exhibits E, F, G) relating to the Byrd Amendment certifications and Florida Citrus Mutual’s members.
Defendants contend the emails are protected by attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine; plaintiffs argue the privilege does not apply or was waived.
The communications occurred after the Byrd Amendment was enacted in 2000 and during the period defendants represented FMC members (including Southern Gardens and A. Duda & Sons).
Plaintiffs allege breach of fiduciary duty and legal malpractice based on failure to notify about deadlines for certifications.
Court ultimately denied the motion to compel production of the disputed emails.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether emails between FMC members and BRC are protected by the attorney‑client privilege.	Southern Gardens asserts no privilege because no direct attorney‑client relationship with BRC for Byrd matters.	BRC communications with FMC members were confidential legal communications under the attorney‑client privilege.	Privilege applies; attorney‑client relationship exists and communications are confidential.
Whether the privilege was waived by disclosure to third parties.	Disclosures to non‑clients show waiver under Fla. Stat. § 90.507.	Disclosure involved communications themselves, not separate waivers; privilege not waived.	No waiver; disclosures do not destroy the privilege here.
Whether work-product protection extends to the requested emails.	Work-product not applicable because emails were created in ordinary course, not anticipation of litigation.	Works product applies where documents prepared in anticipation of litigation; emails are protective.	Court did not need to reach work-product issue because privilege suffices; but in any case work-product not overruling privilege.
Whether the court should compel production or conduct in camera review.	Court should compel or review the documents for privilege.	Privileged emails should not be produced.	Motion to compel denied; emails remain privileged.

International Tel. & Tel. Corp. v. United Tel. Co., 60 F.R.D. 177 (M.D. Fla. 1973) (establishes elements of attorney‑client privilege and confidential communications)
United States v. Schaltenbrand, 930 F.2d 1554 (11th Cir. 1991) (confirms privilege burden on proponent and client ownership of privilege)
Provenzano v. Singletary, 3 F. Supp. 2d 1353 (M.D. Fla. 1999) (lists elements of attorney‑client privilege and confidential communications)