Court Opinion

ID: 9959931
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-12 20:12:50.277491+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:00.066049
License: Public Domain

All in 1 Spot with Theratalk, SLP, PT, OT,
   Psychology, PLLC v Noor Staffing Group, LLC
               2024 NY Slip Op 31160(U)
                      April 5, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 652227/2019
                  Judge: Joel M. Cohen
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
                                                                                                                        INDEX NO. 652227/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 162                                                                                             RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2024

            SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
            COUNTY OF NEW YORK: COMMERCIAL DIVISION PART 03M
            ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X

             ALL IN 1 SPOT WITH THERATALK, SLP, PT, OT,                                             INDEX NO.         652227/2019
             PSYCHOLOGY, PLLC, IRENE CHRISTOFOROU-
             GIOULES, MARIA PANAYIOTOU-MAMOUNAS
                                                                                                    MOTION DATE        12/15/2023
                                                          Plaintiffs,
                                                                                                    MOTION SEQ. NO.        005
                                                - V -

             NOOR STAFFING GROUP, LLC, HABIB NOOR, JACOB                                              INTERIM DECISION+
             ELETTO,                                                                                   ORDER ON MOTION
                                                          Defendants.

            ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X

            HON. JOEL M. COHEN:

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 005) 122, 123, 124, 125,
            126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145,
            146,147,148,149,150,151,152,153,154,155,156,157,158,159,160,161
            were read on this motion to                                 COMPEL DISCOVERY OR IN CAMERA REVIEW

                      Plaintiffs All in 1 SPOT with TheraTalk, SLP, PT, OT, Psychology, PLLC's, Irene

            Christoforou-Gioules' ("Gioules"), and Maria Panayiotou-Mamounas' ("Mamounas")

            (collectively the "All in 1 Parties") renewed motion to compel or, in the alternative, for an in

            camera review, of documents withheld on the basis of the attorney-client privilege by

            Defendants Noor Staffing Group, LLC ("Noor Staffing"), Habib Noor and Jacob Eletto (together

            the "NSG Parties") is granted in part to the extent that the parties shall collectively submit a

            representative sample of the documents for an in camera review.

                A. Background

                      Gioules and Mamounas are the principals of All in 1 SPOT. In 2016, Gioules and

            Mamounas entered into an employment agreement with Noor Staffing that purportedly permitted

             652227/2019 ALL IN 1 SPOT WITH vs. NOOR STAFFING GROUP, LLC                                                Page 1 of 5
             Motion No. 005

                                                                            1 of 5
[* 1]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 652227/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 162                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2024

            them to simultaneously operate All in 1 SPOT. In 2017, All in 1 SPOT and Noor Staffing were

            both awarded contracts by the New York City Department of Education ("DOE").

                   The parties disagree about their respective rights to service the DOE contracts and have

            brought claims against each other. In 2018, Noor Staffing commenced an action against Gioules

            and Mamounas for breach of the employment agreement under Index No. 651459/2018 (the

            "2018 Action"). The All in 1 Parties subsequently filed this action against the NSG Parties,

            asserting breach of contract and employment related claims.

                   The All in 1 Parties move in both actions to compel production of documents,

            specifically emails, involving two attorneys, John Scully ("Scully") and Robert Shaw ("Shaw").

            Mr. Scully served as Noor Staffing's human resources director at the time the employment

            agreement was entered and registered as Noor Staffing's in-house counsel in October 2017. Mr.

            Shaw served as Noor Staffing's outside counsel and was involved in drafting the employment

            agreement as well as in the business negotiations at issue in these cases.

                   The All in 1 Parties' first motion to compel was denied without prejudice for failure to

            comply with the Commercial Division Rules (All in 1 Spot with Theratalk v Noor Staffing

            Group, LLC, 2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 33862[U], [N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County 2022] [the "Prior

            Order"]). In an effort to avoid further motion practice, the Prior Order included guidance as to

            what aspects of the motion were likely to be granted, if properly filed (id).

                    Specifically, the Court indicated that the NSG Parties "should produce all

            communications predating October 2017 that were withheld by the NSG parties based on

            Scully's participation," "provide a more detailed privilege log," and "produce documents

            responsive to Requests 12 and 13" (id.). The Prior Order provides that "[o]nce NSG has

            produced a more detailed privilege log, and produced redacted documents (if any), the parties

             652227/2019 ALL IN 1 SPOT WITH vs. NOOR STAFFING GROUP, LLC                          Page 2 of 5
             Motion No. 005

                                                           2 of 5
[* 2]
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 652227/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 162                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2024

            should meet and confer in good faith. If disputes still remain, Plaintiffs may move to compel and

            Defendants should provide the disputed documents to the Court for in-camera review."

                    Following the issuance of the Prior Order, the parties conferred and NSG Parties

            supplemented their document production and served a Third Revised Privilege Log. The

            Privilege Log references 463 documents that appear to include more than 4,000 pages.

                    The parties were unable to resolve their differences and submitted a joint Rule 14 letter

            (NYSCEF 112). Despite numerous conferences with the Court's Principal Law Clerk, the

            parties could not agree on the scope of an in camera review. While the All in 1 Parties

            represented that a limited in camera review would be sufficient to address the privilege issues,

            the NSG Parties "continue to take the position that in camera review is unnecessary and

            inappropriate here" (NYSCEF 146). NSG Parties provided, and offered to continue to provide,

            clarifications as to specific documents (NYSCEF 157).

                B. Discussion

                    While New York courts generally favor open and liberal discovery, "CPLR 4503(a)

            states that a privilege exists for confidential communications made between attorney and client

            in the course of professional employment, and CPLR 3101 (b) vests privileged matter with

            absolute immunity" (Spectrum Sys. Int'l Corp. v Chem. Bank, 78 NY2d 371, 377 [1991]). The

            burden of establishing that the attorney-client privilege applies is on the party asserting it (id.).

                    "The attorney-client privilege shields from disclosure any confidential communications

            between an attorney and his or her client made for the purpose of obtaining or facilitating legal

            advice in the course of a professional relationship" (Ambac Assur. Corp. v Countrywide Home

            Loans, Inc., 27 NY3d 616, 623 [2016]). In order for the privilege to apply, "the communication

            from attorney to client must be made 'for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of legal advice

             652227/2019 ALL IN 1 SPOT WITH vs. NOOR STAFFING GROUP, LLC                              Page 3 of 5
             Motion No. 005

                                                            3 of 5
[* 3]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 652227/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 162                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2024

            or services, in the course of a professional relationship"' (Spectrum Sys. Intl. Corp. at 377-378

            quoting Rossi v Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Greater NY, 73 NY2d 588, 593 [1989]).

                   "Communications do not automatically obtain privilege status merely because they were

            created or communicated by an attorney ... Only if the communications are transmitted in the

            course of professional employment, that convey a lawyer's assessment of the client's legal

            position, does the privilege apply" (Brawer v Lepor, 75 Misc 3d 1229(A) [Sup Ct New York

            County 2022] citing id.). The privilege cannot be used to shield "underlying facts" (Spectrum

            Sys. Intl. Corp. at 377 citing Upjohn Co. v United States, 449 US 383, 395-396 [1981]).

                   "[W]hether a particular document is or is not a protected is necessarily a fact-specific

            determination ... often requiring in camera review" (Spectrum Sys. Intl. Corp., 78 NY2d at 378).

            The assessment can be particularly challenging when the relevant attorneys have "mixed

            business-legal responsibility." (Rossi, 73 NY2d at 592-593).

                   The Court cannot discern from the papers alone whether the withheld documents are

            privileged, as both Mr. Scully and Mr. Shaw appear to have provided both business and legal

            advice. In those circumstances, the Court has the discretion to direct an in camera review to

            assess claims of privilege (Arkin Kaplan Rice LLP v Kaplan, 107 AD3d 502, 502 [1st Dept

            2013]). Given the volume of documents involved and the common issues raised, the Court

            directs that the All in One Parties and NSG Parties each select up to 25 documents for a total of

            up to 50 documents for in camera review.

                   Accordingly, it is

                   ORDERED that the All in 1 Parties' motion is GRANTED IN PART and the Court will

            conduct an in camera review of a representative sample of the withheld documents; it is further

             652227/2019 ALL IN 1 SPOT WITH vs. NOOR STAFFING GROUP, LLC                          Page 4 of 5
             Motion No. 005

                                                           4 of 5
[* 4]
                                                                                                      INDEX NO. 652227/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 162                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04 / 05 / 2024

                    ORDERED that within fourteen (14) days of this order that the parties file a joint letter

            identifying the documents selected for an in camera review and that NSG Parties submit the

            sample to the Court via USB flash drive delivered to the Part 3 Clerk (Courtroom 208) or via

            email (SFC-Part3@nycourts.gov).

                    This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.

                      4/5/2024
                       DATE                                                         JOEL M. COHEN, J.S.C.

                                      ~
             CHECK ONE:                   CASE DISPOSED                    NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                          GRANTED         □ DENIED         GRANTED IN PART          □ OTHER
             APPLICATION :                SETTLE ORDER                     SUBMIT ORDER

             CHECK IF APPROPRIATE :       INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN       FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT    □ REFERENCE

             652227/2019 ALL IN 1 SPOT WITH vs. NOOR STAFFING GROUP, LLC                              Page 5 of 5
             Motion No. 005

                                                            5 of 5
[* 5]