Filed: Jan. 22, 2016
Latest Update: Jan. 22, 2016
Summary: ORDER MITCHELL S. GOLDBERG , District Judge . AND NOW , this 22 nd day of January, 2016, upon consideration of Defendants' "Motion In Limine to Preclude Argument or Evidence Based Upon Defendants' Invocation of Attorney-Client Privilege," (Dkt. 06-1797, Doc. No. 902; Dkt. 06-2768, Doc. No. 957), the response and reply thereto, and following a pretrial conference, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants' motion is GRANTED , consistent with the accompanying Opinion. Depending on the testimo
Summary: ORDER MITCHELL S. GOLDBERG , District Judge . AND NOW , this 22 nd day of January, 2016, upon consideration of Defendants' "Motion In Limine to Preclude Argument or Evidence Based Upon Defendants' Invocation of Attorney-Client Privilege," (Dkt. 06-1797, Doc. No. 902; Dkt. 06-2768, Doc. No. 957), the response and reply thereto, and following a pretrial conference, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants' motion is GRANTED , consistent with the accompanying Opinion. Depending on the testimon..
More
ORDER
MITCHELL S. GOLDBERG, District Judge.
AND NOW, this 22nd day of January, 2016, upon consideration of Defendants' "Motion In Limine to Preclude Argument or Evidence Based Upon Defendants' Invocation of Attorney-Client Privilege," (Dkt. 06-1797, Doc. No. 902; Dkt. 06-2768, Doc. No. 957), the response and reply thereto, and following a pretrial conference, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants' motion is GRANTED, consistent with the accompanying Opinion. Depending on the testimony presented, the parties may revisit these issues at trial.
