A U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia has denied a plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery in a case involving alleged employment retaliation and civil rights violations by the Brunswick Housing Authority (BHA), ruling that BHA’s claims of attorney-client privilege over communications surrounding a disputed hiring decision were valid and not waived.
The plaintiff, S.J.-N., who previously served as the City of Brunswick’s Director of Neighborhood and Community Services, filed suit after BHA rescinded an offer for an Assistant Executive Director position. She alleges BHA did so after learning she had sued a former employer, and that the City Manager shared this information with BHA officials. Her claims include retaliation under Title VII, civil rights violations, and hostile work environment.
The court’s ruling focuses on a September 1, 2022, BHA board meeting where the hiring decision was allegedly discussed in the presence of BHA’s attorneys, commissioners, a consultant, and others. The plaintiff sought production of documents related to that meeting, arguing that privilege had been waived and that a crime-fraud exception applied.
Vice chair lacked authority to waive privilege
Central to the ruling was the plaintiff’s assertion that Vice Chair P.B., a BHA commissioner, waived privilege by disclosing details of the September 1 meeting in conversations with her. However, the court held that P.B. did not have the authority to unilaterally waive attorney-client privilege.
The court examined Georgia statutes and BHA’s bylaws, which vest decision-making power in the full board and require majority votes to act. While the bylaws authorize the vice chair to act in the chair’s absence, the court interpreted this to mean only in an official capacity when the chair is unavailable for meetings or has vacated the position.
“The plain language of the bylaws undermines Plaintiff’s argument that Vice Chair [P.B.] had the authority to unilaterally waive BHA’s privilege,” the court found. “[P.B.] could not, and did not, waive privilege for BHA.”
Crime-fraud exception rejected
The plaintiff also argued that the crime-fraud exception invalidated BHA’s privilege, claiming that BHA officials conspired to deny her civil rights and sought legal advice to further that scheme. The court rejected this argument, stating that the evidence presented did not meet the legal standard.
“There is no showing that BHA obtained any legal assistance from its attorneys in furtherance of or closely related to retaliating against Plaintiff,” the court wrote. It found no evidence that legal advice was used to facilitate unlawful conduct, noting the plaintiff’s allegations relied heavily on the timing of communications rather than their substance.
Consultant’s role leaves door open for future motion
The court declined to compel production of communications involving BHA consultant H.B., who was present at the September 1 meeting and participated in discussions about the plaintiff’s hiring. The plaintiff argued H.B. was a third party not covered by privilege, while BHA maintained he functioned as part of its “control group.”
Because the parties did not adequately address the legal standards for extending privilege to outside consultants, the court denied the plaintiff’s request without prejudice. It invited her to file a narrower motion focused solely on whether communications involving H.B. are privileged, stating that such a motion must be filed within 21 days.
“If [the plaintiff] elects to do so, she must file her motion within 21 days of the issuance of this Order,” the court wrote. “Failure to file the motion within that time will be deemed a waiver by Plaintiff of any challenge on this issue.”
No basis for in camera review
The court denied multiple requests from the plaintiff to conduct in camera review of BHA’s withheld documents, finding that the plaintiff had not made a sufficient showing to justify such an action.
“Plaintiff has not made any colorable claim that BHA’s privilege assertions are invalid,” the court held. It emphasized that many disputed communications involved BHA’s legal counsel and appeared to fall squarely within traditional privilege protections.
Of particular note, the court found that even internal communications among BHA staff that did not include attorneys may still be protected if created for the purpose of gathering information for counsel in anticipation of legal issues.
“Plaintiff has not provided any reason to believe that BHA’s description of the emails on the privilege log is inaccurate or untruthful, aside from speculation,” the court wrote.
Privilege log and discovery responses deemed sufficient
The court also rejected the plaintiff’s challenge to the adequacy of BHA’s privilege log and discovery responses. It found the log provided sufficient information, including dates, senders, recipients, and the basis for asserting privilege.
Regarding interrogatories and requests for production, the court noted that BHA was in the process of supplementing its responses and that no specific deficiencies had been substantiated.
“This dispute is not ripe for the Court’s review,” the court concluded. It encouraged the parties to continue conferring and left open the option for informal resolution of future discovery disputes.
For more information, see Johnson-Nixon v. Brunswick Housing Authority et al, No. 2:2023cv00084 – Document 88 (S.D. Ga. 2025).
