Steven Gurney-Goldman et al. v. Jane Goldman et al.
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Civil discovery in a corporate/shareholder dispute: scope of attorney-client privilege and work-product, subject matter waiver, and handling of personal diaries via in camera review.
Confirmed the Judicial Hearing Officer’s recommendations requiring production of documents related to the Newmark appraisal process and production of the Allan Goldman diaries to defendants.
The directives compelling production of privileged documents concerning the Newmark appraisal process and the immediate production of the Allan Goldman diaries.
Disclosure of an attorney’s rote transcription of a multi-party conference call was not privileged or attorney work product and did not trigger a broad subject matter waiver; diaries were made relevant by plaintiffs’ use of excerpts, but privacy concerns warranted in camera review before any disclosure.
Background
Plaintiffs Steven Gurney-Goldman and Stephanie Goldman appealed an order denying their motion to modify a July 8, 2025 report by Judicial Hearing Officer Charles E. Ramos and confirming that report. The discovery dispute centered on whether plaintiffs’ voluntary disclosure of an attorney-prepared transcript of a conference call among parties, counsel, and appraisal consultants (the Newmark appraisal process) waived privilege over related materials, and whether plaintiffs must produce their late father Allan Goldman’s personal diaries after relying on diary excerpts to support their claims.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, New York County (Justice Melissa A. Crane), denied plaintiffs’ motion to modify and confirmed the JHO’s recommendations, directing production of documents on the Newmark appraisal process (treated as subject to waiver) and ordering the Allan Goldman diaries to be produced to defendants.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division unanimously modified. It held the attorney’s transcript was a rote transcription and not privileged or attorney work product; its voluntary disclosure did not create a broad subject matter waiver, so privileged materials concerning the Newmark appraisal process could not be compelled. As to the diaries, while plaintiffs made them relevant by using excerpts, the court directed submission of the diaries for in camera review due to irrelevant and private content, rather than immediate production to defendants. The order was otherwise affirmed.
Legal Significance
Clarifies that an attorney’s verbatim or rote transcription of a conference call is not privileged or work product, and disclosure of such a non-privileged document does not effect a subject matter waiver over otherwise privileged communications. Also reaffirms that when a party relies on portions of personal diaries, courts may protect privacy and relevance concerns through in camera review before determining the scope of production.
Producing a non-privileged, attorney-prepared transcript does not waive privilege over related communications; if a party uses excerpts from personal diaries, expect an in camera review to balance relevance with privacy before any disclosure.