Talenthub Worldwide, Inc. v. Talenthub Workforce, Inc.

Lewis Baach Kaufmann Middlemiss LORNA G. SCHOFIEL PLLC UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10, 2024 Plaintiff's request for leave to file a motion se ECE discovery is DENIED for substantially the □□□□□ stated in Defendant's letter at Dkt. No. 56. Th Honorable Lorna G. Schofield en of coer eo eenos to close States District Judge mouons a NOS. , States District Court for the Southern District of New York Pearl Street Dated: February 20, 2025 York. NY 10007 New York, New York Re: Talenthub Worldwide, Inc. v. Talenthub Workforce, Inc., Case No. 24 Civ. 6264 (LGS) Dear Judge Schofield: Plaintiff Talenthub Worldwide Inc. (Plaintiff or “Worldwide”) writes the Court seeking permission to file a motion to obtain certain communications regarding the possession and use of Plaintiff’s computers based upon newly discovered evidence. Any assertion of attorney-client privilege to such communications is overcome by evidence of Defendants’ numerous false statements through their unwitting counsel to a state court judge and Plaintiff’s counsel. In accordance with your rules, we would request a conference on February 24, or another date convenient to the Court.

I. Introduction Defendants stole computers, ignored requests to return them for 21 months, destroyed their value, falsely claiming they did not use the computers. In doing so, they furthered their fraudulent scheme to steal Worldwide’s business operations.

The two computers at issue (under Count 3, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”) claim alleged in the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) will be referred to as the Server and Goldstein’s Desktop, collectively, the “Computers.” FAC JJ 90,135-37 II. Legal Standard for the Crime/Fraud Exception to the Attorney-Client Privilege The privilege accorded communications between attorney and client can be vitiated where a client relates false statements through counsel, furthering the commission of a crime or fraud. To invoke the crime-fraud exception a party must demonstrate that (1) there is a factual basis demonstrating probable cause to believe that a fraud or crime has been committed and (2) the communications in question were in furtherance of the crime or fraud. See e.g., United States v. Jacobs, 117 F.3d 82, 87 (2d Cir. 1997).

10 Grand Central | 155 East 44th Street, 25th Floor | New York,NY 10017 | t212 8267001 | f 212 8267146