GOODWILL v. THE MASIELLO GROUP LIMITED

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
SARA D. GOODWILL, 	)
)
Plaintiff 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 2:22-cv-00407-SDN
)
THE MASIELLO GROUP LTD, 	)
)
Defendant 	)
ORDER ON REDACTED DISCOVERY MATERIAL
On December 20, 2024, following a hearing at which both parties were present,
I ordered the Plaintiff to “submit to me unredacted copies of any communications
between Attorney Goodwill and the Plaintiff relating to the issues in this case prior
to the start of their attorney-client relationship so that I [could] perform an in camera
review to verify Attorney Goodwill’s representation that the redactions in the copies
provided to the Defendant conceal only irrelevant information.” 	Report and Order
(ECF No. 80) at 2. 	Attorney Goodwill timely submitted those documents along with
a privilege log indicating whether each one is protected by attorney-client privilege,
the work-product doctrine, or the Consent Confidentiality Order (ECF No. 39).
The Plaintiff has marked three documents, labeled Bates Nos. 00567, 00597,
and 00599, as “Confidential — Subject to Protective Order,” indicating a good faith
determination 	that 	the 	communications 	therein 	contain 	confidential 	personal
information 	that 	should 	be 	protected 	from 	public 	disclosure, 	see 	Consent
Confidentiality Order ¶ 3, and redacted several portions of the communications.
Case 2:22-cv-00407-SDN Document 88 Filed 01/07/25 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
After reviewing these documents, I conclude that they contain communications
between the Plaintiff and Attorney Goodwill pertaining to personal health matters
not relevant to the instant case and are therefore appropriately redacted.
The Plaintiff asserts that the remaining documents, labeled Bates Nos. 00570,
00571, 00576, 00577, 00589, 00591, 00592, and 00600, which are similarly marked
as “Confidential — Subject to Protective Order” and partially redacted, are protected
by attorney-client privilege. 	See United States v. Schussel, 291 F. App’x 336, 343
(1st Cir. 2008) (defining attorney-client privilege as “(1) [w]here legal advice of any
kind is sought (2) from a professional legal adviser in his capacity as such, (3) the
communications relating to that purpose, (4) made in confidence (5) by the client, (6)
are at his instance permanently protected (7) from disclosure by himself or by the
legal adviser, (8) except the protection [may] be waived”). 	Upon review, it is clear
that relevant information is redacted; namely, communications between the Plaintiff
and Attorney Goodwill, in his capacity as a legal adviser, about the issues in this case.
However, because the purpose of this review is to determine the relevancy of these
documents, I will not at this juncture decide whether attorney-client privilege applies.
Finally, the Plaintiff’s privilege log provides insufficient context. 	A party
withholding material otherwise discoverable on the basis of privilege must “describe
the nature of the documents, communication, or tangible things not produced or
disclosed—and do so in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged
or protected, will enable other parties to assess the claim.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(A).
Here, the privilege log describes each document’s nature as “redacted content,” which
Case 2:22-cv-00407-SDN Document 88 Filed 01/07/25 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
falls far short of that standard. 	See Neelon v. Krueger, No. 12–cv–11198–IT,
2015 WL 1037992, at *3 (D. Mass. Mar. 10, 2015) (stating that a party withholding
discoverable material based on attorney-client privilege must “provide information
sufficient to show, at the least, the existence of each element” of that privilege);
McCormick 	v. 	Dresdale, 	No. 	09-474-PJB-LM, 	2011 	WL 	13364595, 	at 	*2
(D.R.I. June 3, 2011) (“The privilege log must include a detailed description of the
documents to be protected with precise reasons given for the particular objection to
discovery.” (cleaned up)).
Accordingly, I hereby ORDER the Plaintiff to produce to the Defendants, by
January 10, 2025, the privilege log submitted to me as well as a revised privilege log
that reflects my findings and conclusions herein.
NOTICE
In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), a party may
serve and file an objection to this order within fourteen (14) days after being
served with a copy thereof.
Failure to file a timely objection shall constitute a waiver of the right
to review by the District Court and to any further appeal of this order.
Dated: January 7, 2025
/s/ Karen Frink Wolf
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 2:22-cv-00407-SDN Document 88 Filed 01/07/25 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>