EXMARK MANUFACTURING COMPANY INC. v. BRIGGS & STRATTON POWER PRODUCTS GROUP, LLC, 8:10CV187. (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20150209857
Visitors: 17
Filed: Feb. 06, 2015
Latest Update: Feb. 06, 2015
Summary: ORDER THOMAS D. THALKEN, Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the court following a telephone conference with counsel on February 6, 2015. Derek Vandenburgh and Joseph W. Winkels represented the plaintiff, Exmark Manufacturing Company Inc. (Exmark). Marc A. Cohn represented the defendant, Briggs & Stratton Power Products Group, LLC (Briggs). Rebecca D. Ward represented the defendant, Schiller Grounds Care, Inc. The court addressed Exmark's counsel's request for clarification of the court's
Summary: ORDER THOMAS D. THALKEN, Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the court following a telephone conference with counsel on February 6, 2015. Derek Vandenburgh and Joseph W. Winkels represented the plaintiff, Exmark Manufacturing Company Inc. (Exmark). Marc A. Cohn represented the defendant, Briggs & Stratton Power Products Group, LLC (Briggs). Rebecca D. Ward represented the defendant, Schiller Grounds Care, Inc. The court addressed Exmark's counsel's request for clarification of the court's O..
More
ORDER
THOMAS D. THALKEN, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the court following a telephone conference with counsel on February 6, 2015. Derek Vandenburgh and Joseph W. Winkels represented the plaintiff, Exmark Manufacturing Company Inc. (Exmark). Marc A. Cohn represented the defendant, Briggs & Stratton Power Products Group, LLC (Briggs). Rebecca D. Ward represented the defendant, Schiller Grounds Care, Inc. The court addressed Exmark's counsel's request for clarification of the court's Order (Filing No. 274) regarding the disclosure of a document identified as 206 in Exmark's Privilege Log. The court requested and Exmark provided by facsimile document 206 for in camera review. After review, the court finds document 206 is Exmark's "Potential Patent Infringements" list. Therefore, as the list is protected under the attorney-client privilege as explained in the court's Order (Filing No. 274), document 206 is privileged. While Exmark is not compelled to produce the list, Exmark may not assert the attorney-client privilege as to underlying facts in the list, or any of the list's iterations, during the upcoming Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. Exmark's Rule 30(b)(6) deponent should be knowledgeable in the underlying factual content of the list. Exmark's facsimile submission will be separately filed under seal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
