Judgment of the First Circuit, In re Ocean State, LLC et al., No. 24-1722 — United States ex rel. James R. Berkley v. Ocean State, LLC (Dkt. 63, D.R.I.)

Summary

A judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in No. 24-1722, In re: Ocean State, LLC, entered November 20, 2024 and filed November 21, 2024 as Document 63 in district court Case 1:20-cv-00538-JJM-PAS. The petitioners, Ocean State, LLC and the other defendants, sought a writ of mandamus challenging the district court's order compelling them to produce materials they argued were protected by the attorney-client privilege. The panel of Chief Judge Barron and Circuit Judges Gelpi and Aframe finds that the petitioners have not shown that their right to the writ is clear and indisputable or that the equities favor issuance. The petition is denied. The judgment is issued by the Court over the name of Clerk Anastasia Dubrovsky.

Summary drafted by a model from the text of the original file linked on this page and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

Text recognized from a scanned document; may contain errors.

Case 1:20-cv-00538-JJM-PAS Document63 _ Filed 11/21/24 Page 1of 2 PagelD #:
2368

United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit

No. 24-1722
IN RE: OCEAN STATE, LLC; NEW HARBOR CAPITAL FUND LP; NEW HARBOR
CAPITAL FUND II LP; NEW HARBOR CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LP; BLUEPRINT TEST
PREPARATION, LLC; FYZICAL ACQUISITION HOLDINGS, LLC,

Petitioners.

Before

Barron, Chief Judge,
Gelpi and Aframe, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT
Entered: November 20, 2024

Petitioners Ocean State, LLC, et al., have filed a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus by which
they challenge the district court's order compelling them to produce certain materials in discovery.
Petitioners argue that the materials in question are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client
privilege, and that they have not waived that privilege by their filings in the case or their discovery
responses.

We have carefully reviewed the submissions of the parties, and pertinent portions of the
record below. We find that Petitioners have not satisfied their acknowledged "'burden of showing
that [their] right to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable." In re Bulger, 710 F.3d 42, 45
(1st Cir. 2013) (quoting Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of Columbia, 542 U.S. 367, 381
(2004). Nor have petitioners "demonstrate[d] that, on balance, the equities favor issuance of the
writ." Id. See also In re JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 799 F.3d 36, 38 (1st Cir. 2015) (explaining,
inter alia, that "[a] petitioner seeking mandamus must show [] that there is a clear entitlement to
the relief requested" and that the error claimed must be "palpable") (internal quotations omitted).

Accordingly, the petition is DENIED.

By the Court:

Anastasia Dubrovsky, Clerk
Case 1:20-cv-00538-JJM-PAS Document 63
2369

cc:

Mitchell R. Edwards
Patricia K. Rocha
Daniel J. Procaccini
Ryan Moorman
Leonid Feller

David H. Golubock
Bevin Brennan
Patrick Weeks
Patrick N. Sampson
Eric E. Renner
Lauren S. Zurier
Zachary A. Cunha
Bethany N. Wong
Kevin Love Hubbard

Filed 11/21/24

Page 2 of 2 PagelD #:


File and source

File

63-judgment-of-the-first-circuit-verify-pdf-fail-ecf-entry-not-.pdf

Size

147,571 bytes

SHA-256

01f4ec14a6cce36143cd4a9789dd436258e5e88fce9734243dd3c94aeae344fe

Our copy

63-judgment-of-the-first-circuit-verify-pdf-fail-ecf-entry-not-.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)