Providence County Superior Court
For Plaintiff: Joseph V. Cavanagh, Jr., Esq.; Robert J. Cavanagh, Jr., Esq.
For Defendant: Robert D. Wieck, Esq.; Rajaram Suryanarayan, Esq.:
In conjunction with Defendant F.A.F., Inc.'s (F.A.F.) Motion for Summary Judgment, which was the subject of this Court's April 2, 2015 Decision, Plaintiff Management Capital, LLC (Management or Plaintiff) filed a Motion to Compel Production of Documents (hereinafter referred to as the "Motion"). Pursuant to Super. R. Civ. P. 37(a), Plaintiff's present motion seeks an order from this Court compelling F.A.F. and Defendant Arthur Fiorenzano (Fiorenzano) (collectively, Defendants) to respond to its October 4, 2013 Request for Production of Documents. In response, Defendants object to any required production on the basis of privilege and improper procedure.
Facts and Travel
The Court incorporates by reference the facts of this matter as set forth in its previously issued decision. See Mgmt. Capital, LLC v. F.A.F., Inc., No. PB 08-2364, at 2-5 (R.I. Super. Apr. 2, 2015) (Silverstein, J.). As discussed therein, the dispute between the parties stems from alleged typographical errors in a common stock warrant (the Warrant) that afforded Management the option to purchase a set number of shares of F.A.F. pursuant to a predetermined-albeit contested-valuation formula. The pertinent facts of the instant dispute, however, are provided as necessary.
With respect to Plaintiff's present motion, on October 4, 2013, Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendants requesting various documents of Robert D. Wieck (Wieck), counsel for Defendants. (Pl.'s Mot. Compel, Ex. 2). In relevant part, the letter reads as follows:
"The documents requested of [Wieck] are:
"1. Any and all written communications to or from anyone which refer or relate to the Warrant which is the subject matter of the above-captioned matter ("the Warrant").
"2. Any and all documents which relate or refer to your discovery of errors in the Warrant in 2007." Id.
In response, on November 7, 2013, Defendants replied to Plaintiff's request for production of documents by objecting to the two requests and attaching a privilege log outlining which documents were being withheld due to either attorney-client or work-product privilege. Id., Ex. 3. The attached "Privilege/Work Product Log" (hereinafter referred to as the "privilege log") stated that all communications and documents after ...