Norwegian Cruise Line To Court: "any defendant sued under any statute with an element of scienter would lose its right to assert privilege by merely denying liability.”

HAVANA DOCKS CORPORATION V. NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE HOLDINGS, LTD. [1:19-cv-23591; Southern Florida District]

Colson Hicks Eidson, P.A. (plaintiff)
Margol & Margol, P.A. (plaintiff)
Hogan Lovells US LLP (defendant)

LINK: Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd.’S Response In Opposition To Havana Docks Corporation’s Motion To Compel Evidence Withheld Under The Attorney-Client Privilege And Work-Product Doctrines (22 January 2021)

Excerpt (BOLD not added):

“In breathtakingly sweeping fashion, via the Motion Plaintiff seeks to do away with nearly all aspects of the attorney-client privilege and work-product protections in this case by arguing that although Plaintiff is the one who brought a claim under the Helms Burton Act, Norwegian has purportedly injected Norwegian’s corporate “state of mind” into the case by denying that it violated the Act. But Norwegian has not asserted a single position or defense that relies on Norwegian’s subjective understanding or interpretation of the law. It simply has denied, in a variety of ways, that it objectively violated the law. If, on this basis, the Court were to find that Norwegian impliedly waived privilege, the result would be catastrophic: any defendant sued under any statute with an element of scienter would lose its right to assert privilege by merely denying liability.”

LINK: Havana Docks’ Opposition To Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd.’S Motion To Compel (D.E. 127) The Production Of Documents Withheld On The Basis Of The Work-Product Doctrine That Pre-Date January 16, 2019 (22 January 2021)

LINK: Declaration Of Jerry Johnson (22 January 2021)

LINK: Document (22 January 2021)

LINK: Norwegian’s Second Amended Responses And Objections To Havana Docks Corporation’s First Set Of Interrogatories (22 January 2021)