UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JOSEPHINE TIEMANN,

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-10315

vs.

DISTRICT JUDGE ARTHUR J. TARNOW

BEST BUY STORES, L.P., MAGISTRATE JUDGE MONA K. MAJZOUB

Defendant.

_____________________________/

ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

OF ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR IN CAMERA

REVIEW OF DOCUMENT AND DETERMINATION (DOCKET NO. 39)

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration of Order

Granting in Part Defendant’s Motion for In Camera Review of Document and Determination, filed

on October 27, 2010. (Docket no. 39). The motion has been referred to the undersigned for decision

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). (Docket no. ___).

Defendant brings this motion asking the Court to reconsider and/or modify its October 13,

2010 Order which held that an email sent by Plaintiff to the personal email account of Byrne Doyle,

Territory General Manager for Defendant Best Buy, is a privileged communication between Plaintiff

and her attorney, the email was inadvertently sent to Doyle instead of to her attorney, and that the

inadvertent disclosure did not waive the privilege. (Docket no. 36). The Order provides that the

Defendant and Byrne Doyle: (1) must destroy all paper copies of the email, (2) must permanently

delete all electronic copies of the email from all computer programs, hard-drives, and other

electronic devices upon which the email may be saved, (3) are prohibited from disclosing the

1
contents of the email to anyone, and (4) are prohibited from utilizing the email and/or its contents

for any purpose. (Docket no. 36).

In the instant motion, Special Counsel for Defendant Best Buy states that it has been retained

by Defendant for the purpose of advising Defendant’s counsel whether there is a basis on which to

file Objections to the Order. The motion asks the Court to modify the October 13, 2010 Order to

permit Special Counsel for Defendant to review the disputed email for that limited purpose.

Defendant also asks the Court to reconsider and reverse its Order, and grant it a seven day extension

of time in which to file Objections to the Order.

Pursuant to this Court’s local rules, motions for reconsideration that “merely present the

same issues ruled upon by the court” will not be granted. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(3). In addition,

“[t]he movant must not only demonstrate a palpable defect by which the court and the parties . . .

have been misled but also show that correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the

case.” Id. A “palpable defect” is a defect which is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or plain. 

Guaranty Residential Lending, Inc. v. Homestead Mortg. Co., LLC, No. 04-74842, 2006 WL

2711815, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 21, 2006) (citation omitted).

The Court finds that Defendant has failed to show a palpable defect or that the correction of

any palpable defect would result in a different disposition of the motion. Accordingly, the motion

for reconsideration will be denied insofar as the Court will not reconsider or reverse its Order.

However, the Court will modify its Order to permit Special Counsel for Defendant to review the

disputed email for the purpose of advising Defendant’s counsel whether there is a basis on which

to file Objections with the district court. Since the district court has entered an Order extending the

time to file Objections to the October 13, 2010 Order (docket no. 41), that portion of Defendant’s

2
motion is moot.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration of Order

Granting in Part Defendant’s Motion for In Camera Review of Document and Determination

(docket no. 39) is GRANTED IN PART to the extent that the Court will modify its October 13,

2010 Order to permit Special Counsel for Defendant to review the disputed email for the purpose

of advising Defendant’s counsel whether there is a basis on which to file Objections to the Order. 

In all other respects Defendant’s motion is denied.

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), the parties have a period of fourteen days

from the date of this Order within which to file any written appeal to the District Judge as may be

permissible under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Dated: November 4, 2010 s/ Mona K. Majzoub 

MONA K. MAJZOUB

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

PROOF OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of this Order was served upon Counsel of Record on this date.

Dated: November 4, 2010 s/ Lisa C. Bartlett 

Case Manager

3