INTELIDENT SOLUTIONS, LLC
v.
HANCOCK WHITNEY BANK
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court granted in part and denied in part the parties' motion for a Rule 502(d) order, approving the order but limiting its application to the moving parties.
Plaintiff Intelident Solutions and non-party Hancock Whitney Bank sought a Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d) protective order to govern the handling of …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Waiver Of Privilege cases and more on FLexlaw
a Delaware Corporation,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 8:19-cv-2606-MSS-CPT
CALVETTI FERGUSON, LLC, a Texas Limited Liability Corporation, and CHIN YU, an individual,
Defendants. ________________________________/
O R D E R
Before the Court is a Joint Motion for Entry of 502(d) Order and accompanying proposed order filed by Plaintiff Intelident Solutions, LLC (Intelident) and non-party Hancock Whitney Bank (Hancock). (Docs. 189, 189-1). By way of their motion, Intelident and Hancock seek judicial approval of a proposed protective order under Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d) that memorializes the processes by which they will handle information covered by the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work product doctrine. Id. Rule 502(d) states: A federal court may order that the privilege or protection is not waived by disclosure connected with the litigation pending before the court—in which event the disclosure is also not a waiver in any other federal or state proceeding.
Fed. R. Evid. 502(d). The decision whether to enter an order pursuant to Rule 502(d) is discretionary. See Proxicom Wireless, LLC v. Target Corp., 2020 WL 1671326, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 25, 2020). Nonetheless, federal courts routinely enter such orders upon the parties’ request. See Diaz v. Chapters Health Sys., Inc., 2019 WL 1498873, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 1, 2019) (collecting cases). For purposes of facilitating the sharing of information pursuant to Intelident’s subpoena to Hancock, see (Doc. 189), and to avoid having to litigate the issue of a privilege waiver as to each document exchanged, Intelident and Hancock’s proposal for the entry of a Rule 502(d) order serves a useful function here. The Court therefore finds that good cause exists for the entry of such an order in this action. There is, however, one problem with the parties’ proposed order. (Doc. 189-1). Rule 502(e) provides that “[a]n agreement on the effect of disclosure in a federal proceeding is binding only on the parties to the agreement, unless it is incorporated into a court order.” Fed. R. Evid. 502(e). In this case, Intelident and Hancock do not represent in their joint motion that Defendants Calvetti Ferguson, LLC and Chin Yu have agreed to the proposed order. (Doc. 189). Accordingly, despite the language of Rule 502(e) indicating that a Rule 502(d) order binds all parties to a federal proceeding,
this Order shall apply only to Intelident and Hancock. In light of the above, it is hereby ORDERED: 1. Intelident and Hancock’s Joint Motion for Entry of 502(d) Order (Doc. 189) is granted in part and denied in part. 2. Intelident and Hancock’s proposed Order Implementing Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d) (Doc. 189-1) is adopted and approved, subject to the limitation set forth above. 3. Nothing in this Order shall be construed to abrogate or limit Intelident and Hancock’s respective obligations under the Middle District of Florida’s Local Rules, including the procedures for filing a motion to seal and the requirement that they confer in good faith to resolve disputed claims of privilege and other discovery matters prior to seeking Court intervention. DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, this 27th day of May 2021. Sided Ast.
HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER P. TUITE
United States Magistrate Judge
Copies to: Counsel of record Counsel for Hancock Whitney Bank
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Intelident Solutions, LLC v. Hancock Whitney Bank, 2020 WL 1671326 (M.D. Fla. 2021)…court—in which event the disclosure is also not a waiver in any other federal or state proceeding. Fed. R. Evid. 502(d). The decision whether to enter an order pursuant to Rule 502(d) is discretionary. See Proxicom Wireless, LLC v. Target Corp., 2020 WL 1671326, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 25, 2020). Nonetheless, federal courts routinely enter such orders upon the parties’ request. See Diaz v. Chapters Health Sys., Inc., 2019 WL 1498873, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 1, 2019) (collecting cases). For purposes of facil…1 / 2
-
United States v. Captive Alternatives, LLC, 2022 WL 3134374 (M.D. Fla. 2023)…se for refusing to provide the IRS with the requested information. Id. (internal citation omitted) In the end, the decision of whether to enter a Rule 502(d) order is left to a court’s sound discretion. See Proxicom Wireless, LLC v. Target Corp., 2020 WL 1671326, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 25, 2020). Against this backdrop, Captive’s motion fails. To begin, as the IRS emphasizes, the instant proceeding is summary in nature and does not involve discovery as that term is understood in civil litigation. Clarke, 81…1 / 3
-
Husidic v. FR8 Solutions, Inc. (M.D. Fla. 2025)…nd properly support the basis for any such request, and must make any necessary edits to their stipulated proposal. To be sure, Rule 502(d) orders are often entered on request. See Proxicom Wireless, LLC v. Target Corp., No. 6:19- cv-1886-Orl-37LRH, 2020 WL 1671326, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 25, 2020). But a Rule 502(d) order remains discretionary. See United States v. DaVita, Inc., No. 6:17-cv-1592-Orl-37GJK, 2020 WL 12813697, at *1-2 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 4, 2020) (“The Motion lacks a sufficient factual predicate to p…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Intelident Solutions, LLC v. Hancock Whitney Bank, 2020 WL 1671326 (M.D. Fla. 2021)