SCOTT v. WALGREENS PHARMACY SERVICES MIDWEST LLC

IN THE U NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
VALDOSTA DIVISION
RONDA SCOTT,
Plaintiff,
v .
WALGREEN PHARMACY SERVICES
MIDWEST, LLC,
Defendant.
ORDER
CASE NO:
7: 24-cv-126-WLS
Before the Court is Plaintiff R onda Scott's Motion to Compel Production of \Vithheld
Termination Materials or, Alternatively, for In Camera Review, as amended (Docs. 76, 7 7)
("Motion to Compel"). D efendant's Response (Doc. 78) was timely filed. Plaintiff did not file
a reply to the Response and the time for doing so has lapsed. Thus , this matter is ripe for
resolution.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit ,pro se, on November 26, 2024. Prior to that time, she fil ed
an EE OC charge on February 25, 2024. D efendant terminated Plaintiffs employment almost
a year later on February 7, 2025. On April 28, 2025, with the assistance of counsel, Plaintiff
filed her First Amended Complaint for D amages (Doc. 16), which is the operative Complaint
in this matter. After dismissal of certain claims, 1 Plaintiff has the following remaining claims
against D efendant asserting that D efendant discriminated against her because of her race and
sex (Count I) , discriminated against her because of her age (Count II) , retaliated against her
for filing an EE OC charge (Count III) , and retaliated against her for alleged False Claims Act
activity (Count IV). (S ee D ocs. 16 and 24).
1 By Order (Doc. 24), Plaintiffs claims for Retaliation in Violation of the Georgia Whistleblower Protection
Act (O. C. G .A. § 45-1-4) (Count V) and for Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy (Common
L aw- 	State of Georgia) (Court VI) were dismissed with prejudice.
1
Case 7:24-cv-00126-WLS Document 82 Filed 10/08/26 Page 1 of 5

II . 	M OTION TO COMPEL
During the discovery period, D efendant produced a privilege log identifying certain
documents withheld as privileged, based on the involvement of in- house counsel and / or
outside counsel engaged to defend D efendan t against P laintiffs claims. The date the privilege
log was provided is not in the R ecord . Plaintiff now requests the Court order D efendant to
produce certain documen ts it emized on the privilege log tha t were generated by D efendant's
personnel, some by in -house counsel, during the peri od beginning January 15, 2025, through
February 7, 2025. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks production of the following items on the privilege
log:
Log 	Date 	D e sc ription 	lnvolving 2 	B asis for Privile ge
Ronda Scott- new From: Biller 	Attorney-client communication and
63 	01/ 15/25 	potential concerns To : Jonkman 	attorney work product; email with
for investigation Cc: Miranda & 	insi de legal counsel and prepared in
Thakkar 	anticipation of litigation
Ronda Scott- new 	From: Biller Attorney-client communication and
64 	01/ 16/25 	potential concerns 	To : Thakkar, attorney work product; email with
for investigation 	J onkman & Miranda insi de legal counsel and prepared in
anticipation of litigation
Ronda Scott- new Attorney-client communication and
69 	01/ 16/25 	potential concerns From: Thakkar 	attorney work product; email with
for investigation To : Biller & Miranda 	insi de legal counsel and prepared in
anticipation of litigation
Ronda Scott- new Attorney work product; email
70 	01/27/25 	potential concerns From: Thakkar 	prepared at the direction of legal
for investigation To : Guta&Jonkman 	counsel during or in anticipation of
litigation
71 	02/03/25 	Ronda Scott-status? From: Thakkar 	Attorney-client communication; email
To : Biller &Jonkman 	with insi de legal counsel
From: Thakkar Attorney-client communication and
73 	01/31/25 	Ronda Scott-status? 	To : Biller, J onkman attorney work product; email with
&Miranda insi de legal counsel and prepared in
anticipation of litigation
Attorney-client communication and
67 	02/05/25 Ronda Scott - next 	From: Biller 	attorney work product; email with
steps - edits 	To : Thakkar 	insi de legal counsel and prepared in
anticipation of litigation
2 The names and positions of D efendant's employees identified in the privilege log are: (1) In-house counsel
Becky Biller ("Biller"); (2) Employee Relations Manager D hara Thakkar ('"Thakkar''); (3) Compliance
Investigations Manager Scott Jonkman ("Jonkman' '); (4) Senior Director of E mployee Relations Amanda
Miranda ("Miranda"); and (5) Asset Protection Manager Nathan Guta ("Guta' ').
2
Case 7:24-cv-00126-WLS Document 82 Filed 10/08/26 Page 2 of 5

Log 	Date 	D esc ription 	l nvolving2 	B asis for Privilege
Attorney-client communication and
74 	02/05/25 R onda Scott - next 	From: Thakkar 	attorney work product; email with
steps - edits 	To : Biller 	insi de legal counsel and prepared in
anticipation of litimltion
Attorney-client communication and
80 	02/05/25 R onda Scott - next 	From: Thakkar 	attorney work product; email with
steps 	To : Biller 	insi de legal counsel and prepared in
anticipation of litimltion
Attorney work product; email
3 	02/05/25 Touch base -Ronda 	From: Thakkar 	prepared at the direction of legal
Scott ER Case 	To : Bell 	counsel during or in anticipation of
litimltion
Attorney work product; email
4 	02/06/25 Brief Follow Up- 	From: Thakkar 	prepared at the direction of legal
Ronda Scott 	To : Bell 	counsel during or in anticipation of
litimltion
Attorney work product; email
9 	02/05/25 Touch base -Ronda 	From: Bell 	prepared at the direction of legal
Scott ER Case 	To : Thakkar 	counsel during or in anticipation of
litimltion
Attorney work product; email
10 	02/06/25 Brief Follow Up - 	From: Bell 	prepared at the direction of legal
Ronda Scott 	To : Thakkar 	counsel during or in anticipation of
litimltion
Attorney work product; email
11 	02/06/25 Follow up on R onda 	From: Bell 	prepared at the direction of legal
Scott communication 	To : Thakkar 	counsel during or in anticipation of
litimltion
Attorney work product; email
75 	02/06/25 R onda Scott - Term 	From: Thakkar 	prepared at the direction of legal
Talking Points 	To : Bell 	counsel during or in anticipation of
litimltion
From: Jonkman Attorney-client communication and
51 	02/06/25 R onda Scott - next To : Biller attorney work product; email with
steps Cc: Thakkar insi de legal counsel and prepared in
anticipation of litimltion
Attorney-client communication and
77 	02/07/25 R onda Scott - next 	From: Thakkar 	attorney work product; email with
steps 	To : Biller &Jonkman 	insi de legal counsel and prepared in
anticipation of litimltion
Privileged investigation prepared in
81 	N/A 	Case 445130-Legal 	Author: Thakkar 	anticipation of litigation at the
direction of counsel
In suppor t of her Motion, P laintiff argues that the privilege log does no t establish that
the above documents contain legal advice, and some of the communications are between non-
la:\vyer business employees. P laintiff poin ts out that the communications concern "internal
investigation," "next steps," "status," and 	"Term Talking P oints" relat ed to P laintiff s
3
Case 7:24-cv-00126-WLS Document 82 Filed 10/08/26 Page 3 of 5

termination . "T he documen ts concern the investigation and employment decision occurring
immediately before [D efendant] terminated [Plaintiff] ." (Doc . 77 at 3). A t the time Plaintiff's
employment was 	terminated , 	D hara T hakkar 	("Thakkar") 	was 	D efendant's 	E mploy ee
Relations Manager . Tiiakkar was ei ther the author or a recipient of each of the documents
sought by Plaintiff. According to Thakkar's 	deposition testimony, 	E mployee Relations
handled complaints of discrimination and re taliation and advised managemen t concerning
discipline and termination of employees. (TI1akkar D ep. 14:13- 23, July 13, 2026, E CF No.
77-1 [hereinafter ''Thakkar D ep . __"]). T hakkar is not a la:\vyer, bu t she "confirmed tha t she
participated in privileged communications concerning [Plaintiff's] case immedia t ely before the
termination ." (Doc. 77 at 3 (citing T hakkar D ep. 17 1: 25- 172:2). T hakkar also confirmed tha t
"Employee Relations 	worked with 	[D efendant's] 	legal departmen t when litigation was
anticipated[.]" (Thakkar D ep. 15:13-16). A t the time of her deposition, T hakkar was no longer
employed by D efendant and could not recall the contents of the i tems in the privilege l og.
Nor could she recall the identity of lawyers involved in items where one was not already
identified or what consi derations were involved in the decision to terminate Plaintiff.
P laintiff con tests D efendant's classification of the above listed documents as privileged
as attorney- client communications 	or attorney work product . At a minimum, P laintiff
contends that the Court should inspect the documents in camera and determine whether they
are privileged.
Defendant argues tha t it is not necessary for an attorney to be copied in each and every
communication for documents to be attorney work product when they were prepared in
anticipation of litigation at the direction of an attorney. All of the items sought by P laintiff are
label ed privileged as attorney-client communications or attorney work product prepared in
anticipation of litigation at the direction of counsel. P laintiff's firs t EE OC complaint was filed
on F ebruary 25, 2024, and P laintiff's lawsuit was filed on November 26, 2024. D efendant's
legal depar t ment 	could reasonably anticipate additional litigation upon 	termination 	of
Plaintiff's employment. T hakkar confirmed that she participat ed in privileged communications
concerning P laintiff's 	case immediately before the termination, and that the E mploy ee
Relations 	D epartment worked with D efendant's 	legal department when litigation was
anticipated. TI1e descriptions of the items P laintiff seeks to have produced together with the
4
Case 7:24-cv-00126-WLS Document 82 Filed 10/08/26 Page 4 of 5

attorney- client communication and / or attorney work product in anticipation of litigation at
the direction of counsel reflect that the bas is provided for classifying the communications as
privileged are reasonable . The Court finds Plaintiffs arguments for production of the
documents , whether specifically discussed or not, unpersuasive. H owever, the Court finds that
in camera review of the documents is warranted .
Accordingly, upon review of the Motion to Compel, R esponse and the R ecord in this
matter, 	the 	Motion 	to 	Compel 	P roduction 	of \Vithheld 	Termination 	Materials 	or,
Alternatively, for In Camera Rev iew, as amended (Docs. 76, 77) is GRANTED IN PART
and DENIED IN PART.
The Motion to Compel is GRANTED to the extent that on or before Friday,
October 16, 2026, D efendant is hereby ORDERED to produce the above documents for in
camera review . Such production shall include the documents as well as a certification by
counsel as to each document stating the identities (names and titles) of all persons participating
in tl1e communication or document preparation; i. e. , the person directing tl1e communication
or document preparation, tl1e source (s) , all recipients, and any actual contemporaneously
included notices, restrictions, or limitations imposed witl1 respect thereto at the time of
communication or preparation .
TI1e Motion to Compel is DENIED WITHOUT PREJU DICE as to P laintiffs
request for production of the above documents , subject to the Court's in camera review .
SO ORDERED, this 8th day of October 2026 .
/s/ W. Louis Sands
W. LOU IS SANDS, SR. JUDGE
U NITED STATES DISTRICT CO URT
5
Case 7:24-cv-00126-WLS Document 82 Filed 10/08/26 Page 5 of 5