Court Opinion

ID: 9959914
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-12 20:12:09.720994+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:59.564315
License: Public Domain

TGT, LLC v Meli
               2024 NY Slip Op 31185(U)
                      April 7, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 153682/2023
                  Judge: Andrea Masley
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. 153682/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 175                                                                                               RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/07/2024

            SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
            COUNTY OF NEW YORK: COMMERCIAL DIVISION PART 48
            ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X

             TGT, LLC,                                                                                INDEX NO.          153682/2023

                                                          Petitioner,
                                                                                                      MOTION DATE
                                                - V -
                                                                                                      MOTION SEQ. NO.        003
             JOSEPH MELI, RICHARD MELI, JESSICA MELI,
             JACKSON MELI, JULIAN MELI, ANNA MELI, MARVIN
             INGBER, PILIERO & ASSOCIATES PLLC, HOWARD                                                 DECISION+ ORDER ON
             LEADER ATTORNEY AT LAW, MACHINE & THE BEAST,                                                    MOTION
             LLC, PFY HOLDINGS, LLC, EDWARD JONES
             INVESTMENTS, FARFETCH US HOLDINGS LTD.,
             WHITE & WILLIAMS, LLP, and HECHT PARTNERS, LLP,

                                                          Respondents.
            ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X

            HON. ANDREA MASLEY:

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 114, 115, 116, 117,
            118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 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, 162
            were read on this motion to/for                                                         DISCOVERY

            Upon the foregoing documents, it is

                      Petitioner TGT, LLC (TGT) moves pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel respondent

            Hecht Partners, LLP (Hecht), judgment debtor Joseph Meli's (Joseph) former attorneys,

            to respond to TGT's judgment enforcement subpoena. (NYSCEF Doc No. [NYSCEF]

            117, Subpoena).

                      The night before argument on the motion, Hecht served TGT with a privilege log

            (Privilege Log) containing over 700 entries. (NYSCEF 156, tr 27:3-28:3.) Many of the

            log entries asserted the common interest privilege as to communications involving

            Joseph's father, respondent Richard Meli (Richard). (Id. tr 27:8-28:10.) By interim

            order dated November 17, 2023, the court granted TGT's motion to the extent of

             153682/2023 TGT, LLC vs. MELI, JOSEPH ET AL                                                                  Page 1 of 7
             Motion No. 003

                                                                            1 of 7
[* 1]
                                                                                           INDEX NO. 153682/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 175                                                               RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/07/2024

            ordering Hecht to produce a disclosure statement listing Joseph's assets. (NYSCEF

            127, Order.) It also directed Hecht to produce its engagement letters and common

            interest agreements. (Id.) The court then adjourned the motion, to provide TGT with

            time to review the Privilege Log, and directed the parties to provide additional briefing

            on the common interest privilege. (See NYSCEF 127, Order; NYSCEF 156, November

            13, 2023 tr at 27:2-30:21; 33:7-23; NYSCEF 139, Privilege Log.)

                    Hecht contends that TGT is seeking the production of communications and

            documents that are protected from disclosure as: (1) attorney-client communications

            with Richard as Joseph's agent; (2) attorney-client communications with Joseph and

            Richard, who share a common legal interest in reasonably anticipated litigation; and (3)

            Hecht's work product. TGT argues that Hecht cannot meet its burden of demonstrating

            that any of these communications are privileged because: (1) there is no evidence in the

            record that Richard was acting as agent for Joseph or that Richard's participation was

            necessary to facilitate attorney-client communications; (2) Richard and Joseph shared a

            common personal/business interest in seeking to transfer assets into a trust for the

            benefit of Joseph's children, not a common legal interest in connection with any pending

            or reasonably anticipated litigation; and (3) the work product privilege does not attach to

            documents that could have been created by a layperson. TGT also argues that, under

            the crime-fraud exception, it is entitled to production of all communications, because

            there is probable cause to believe that Richard and Joseph sough Hecht's legal advice

            for an unlawful purpose (i.e. the transfer judgment debtor assets away from the reach of

            the judgment creditor).

                            "Generally, communications made in the presence of third
                            parties, whose presence is known to the [client], are not
             153682/2023 TGT, LLC vs. MELI, JOSEPH ET AL                                   Page 2 of 7
             Motion No. 003

                                                           2 of 7
[* 2]
                                                                                                 INDEX NO. 153682/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 175                                                                   RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/07/2024

                              privileged from disclosure because they are not deemed
                              confidential. ...

                              "As with any rule, there are exceptions. [The Court of
                              Appeals] ha[s] held, for example, that statements made to
                              the agents or employees of the attorney or client, or through
                              a hired interpreter, retain their confidential (and therefore,
                              privileged) character, where the presence of such third
                              parties is deemed necessary to enable the attorney-client
                              communication and the client has a reasonable expectation
                              of confidentiality." (Ambac Assur. Corp. v Countrywide
                              Home Loans, Inc., 27 NY3d 616, 624 [2016] [internal
                              quotation marks and citation omitted].)

            Also, under the common interest exception,

                              "[d]isclosure is privileged between codefendants, coplaintiffs
                              or persons who reasonably anticipate that they will become
                              colitigants, because such disclosures are deemed necessary
                              to mount a common claim or defense, at a time when parties
                              are most likely to expect discovery requests and their legal
                              interests are sufficiently aligned that the counsel of each [i]s
                              in effect the counsel of all." (Id. at 628 [internal quotation
                              marks and citations omitted]).

                    As concerns attorney work product, this privilege "applies only to documents

            prepared by counsel acting as such, and to materials uniquely the product of a lawyer's

            learning and professional skills, such as those reflecting an attorney's legal research,

            analysis, conclusions, legal theory or strategy." (Brooklyn Union Gas Co. v American

            Home Assur. Co., 23 AD3d 190, 190-191 [1st Dept 2005] [internal citation omitted]).

                    The application of a privilege is narrowly construed and the party asserting it has

            the burden of establishing a right to protection. (Ambac Assur. Corp., 27 NY3d at 624)

                    Here, Hecht has fails to meet its burden. Hecht contends that Joseph

            "reasonably believed that his attorney's communications with him while he was

            incarcerated, through his father, would be confidential." (NYSCEF 152, Hecht's

            supplemental memorandum in opposition at 4). In support, Hecht points to various

             Motion No. 003

                                                          3 of 7
[* 3]
                                                                                             INDEX NO. 153682/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 175                                                               RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/07/2024

            indicia of Richard's agency. (See id. at 4-5, citing NYSCEF 141 [power of attorney

            naming Richard as Joseph's attorney-in-fact for "all acts directly and indirectly incident

            to the transfer of assets to the J4 Trust"], NYSCEF 5 [J4 Trust agreement naming

            Richard as trustee], and NYSCEF 154 [signature page of an engagement agreement

            with Hecht, signed on Joseph's behalf by Richard]). However, "[t]he scope of the

            privilege is not defined by the third parties' employment or function." Instead, "it

            depends on whether the client had a reasonable expectation of confidentiality under the

            circumstances." (People v Osorio, 75 NY2d 80, 84 [1989] [internal citations omitted].)

            Here, Hecht does not provide any evidence that Joseph had a reasonable expectation

            that communications between Hecht and Richard, in his capacities as Joseph's

            attorney-in-fact or trustee of the J4 Trust, would be confidential. (Contra Homapour v

            Harounian, 211 AD3d 508, 509 [1st Dept 2022] [finding privilege was maintained where,

            among other things, there was an agency agreement specifying that the agent's

            "activities were undertaken at counsel's direction and were intended to maintain and

            preserve privilege"]; Spicer v GardaWorld Consulting (UK) Ltd., 181 AD3d 413, 414 [1st

            Dept 2020] [finding that the plaintiffs had "a reasonable expectation that the

            confidentiality of communications between their counsel and (their financial adviser)

            would be maintained" where "(p)laintiffs' counsel attested that (the financial adviser)

            promised to keep all such communications confidential" and the relevant transaction

            document "specified that all privileged documents related to the transaction would

            remain protected from disclosure to defendant even after closing."], Iv to appeal

            dismissed, 37 NY3d 1084 [2021].) Moreover, Hecht fails to explain, much less offer any

            evidence of, how Richard's participation was necessary to facilitate attorney-client

             153682/2023 TGT, LLC vs. MELI, JOSEPH ET AL                                     Page 4 of 7
             Motion No. 003

                                                           4 of 7
[* 4]
                                                                                           INDEX NO. 153682/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 175                                                               RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/07/2024

            communication. (Contra Homapour, 211 AD3d at 509 [finding that "the agency

            exception applie(d)," where the presence of the defendant's personal assistant, "in fact,

            facilitate(ed) attorney-client communications," because, "by recording notes of the

            meeting, .... (she) allowed (the defendant) to listen rather than write"]; Spicer, 181

            AD3d at 414 [finding that the involvement of the plaintiffs' financial advisor "was

            necessary to enable attorney-client communication," where there was "unrebutted

            evidence reflect(ing) that (the financial adviser) spent some portion of its time helping

            counsel to understand various aspects of the transaction (to assist plaintiffs' counsel in

            providing legal advice)"]). Accordingly, Hecht fails to demonstrate that the agency

            exception preserves the attorney-client privilege as to communications involving

            Richard.

                    Hecht also fails to demonstrate that the common legal interest exception applies

            to its communications with Richard. Hecht contends that Joseph, as owner of the

            assets at the time of the engagement, and Richard, as trustee of the J4 Trust and

            Joseph's attorney-in-fact for purposes of transferring assets held by third parties into the

            trust, shared a common legal interest in seeking a legal defense as to assets that were

            not subject to the forfeiture orders and judgments issued in the criminal case against

            Joseph (USA v Meli [1 :17-cr-00127, SD NY]), as they "reasonably-anticipated follow-

            on criminal-court litigations" to enforce those forfeiture orders and judgments. Hecht

            argues that "such enforcement litigation would necessarily bind Joseph Meli and

            Richard Meli to the same positions as they were both acting to fund the same trust."

            (NYSCEF 152, Hecht's supplemental memorandum in opposition at 7 .) However, that

            Richard and Joseph sought to fund the J4 Trust without violating the forfeiture and

             153682/2023 TGT, LLC vs. MELI, JOSEPH ET AL                                   Page 5 of 7
             Motion No. 003

                                                           5 of 7
[* 5]
                                                                                            INDEX NO. 153682/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 175                                                                RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/07/2024

            restitution orders and judgments against Joseph, does not mean that they reasonably

            anticipated litigation. By the time of Hecht's engagement, the criminal case against

            Joseph had concluded and Hecht provides no basis for why Joseph and Robert

            anticipated enforcement litigation. As "[t]here must be a substantial showing by the

            party attempting to invoke the protections of the privilege of the need for a common

            defense as opposed to the mere existence of a common problem." (Matter of New York

            Counsel for State of California Franchise Tax Bd., 33 Misc 3d 500, 516 [Sup Ct,

            Westchester County 2011], affd sub nom. Hyatt v State of Cal. Franchise Tax Bd., 105

            AD3d 186 [2d Dept 2013] [ internal citation omitted] [explaining that the common

            interest exception "does not protect business or personal communications"]), Hecht fails

            to demonstrate that the common interest exception applies. (See Ambac Assur. Corp.,

            27 NY3d at 629 [refusing to "to extend the common interest doctrine to communications

            made in the absence of pending or anticipated litigation"]).

                    Finally, with regard to Hecht's work product, TGT lists Privilege Log entries that

            improperly assert the privilege. ( See NYSCEF 138, Burton affirmation, ,i 24; NYSCEF

            149 [TGT's list of Privilege Log entries that do not relate to legal advice yet assert the

            work product privilege]). These entries describe such tasks as, among other things,

            scheduling calls and discussing fees. ( See NYSCEF 149). As none of these entries

            describe materials that are "uniquely the product of a lawyer's learning and professional

            skills" or "communication of a legal character," they are not privileged. (Brooklyn Union

            Gas Co., 23 AD3d 191).

                    Having determined that the communications at issue are not privileged, the court

            does not reach the question of whether the crime-fraud exception applies.

             153682/2023 TGT, LLC vs. MELI, JOSEPH ET AL                                    Page 6 of 7
             Motion No. 003

                                                           6 of 7
[* 6]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 153682/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 175                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/07/2024

                     Accordingly, it is hereby

                     ORDERED that TGT, LLC's motion is granted to the extent that Hecht Partners,

            LLP shall produce all communications involving respondent Richard Meli and items

            listed on NYSCEF 149 within 10 days from service of a copy of this order with notice of

            entry.

                     4/7/2024
                      DATE                                                      ANDREA MASLEY, 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

             153682/2023 TGT, LLC vs. MELI, JOSEPH ET AL                                          Page 7 of 7
             Motion No. 003

                                                             7 of 7
[* 7]