Filed: Sep. 06, 2019
Latest Update: Sep. 06, 2019
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL (DE 18) AS NARROWED BY THE JOINT STATEMENT OF RESOLVED AND UNRESOLVED ISSUES (DE 25) ANTHONY P. PATTI , Magistrate Judge . This is an employment discrimination case. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's July 30, 2019 second motion to compel. (DE 18.) Defendant has filed a response, and Plaintiff has filed a timely reply. (DEs 21, 22, 24.) The parties have also filed a joint statement of resolved and unresolved issues. (DE 25.) Chief J
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL (DE 18) AS NARROWED BY THE JOINT STATEMENT OF RESOLVED AND UNRESOLVED ISSUES (DE 25) ANTHONY P. PATTI , Magistrate Judge . This is an employment discrimination case. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's July 30, 2019 second motion to compel. (DE 18.) Defendant has filed a response, and Plaintiff has filed a timely reply. (DEs 21, 22, 24.) The parties have also filed a joint statement of resolved and unresolved issues. (DE 25.) Chief Ju..
More
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL (DE 18) AS NARROWED BY THE JOINT STATEMENT OF RESOLVED AND UNRESOLVED ISSUES (DE 25)
ANTHONY P. PATTI, Magistrate Judge.
This is an employment discrimination case. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's July 30, 2019 second motion to compel. (DE 18.) Defendant has filed a response, and Plaintiff has filed a timely reply. (DEs 21, 22, 24.) The parties have also filed a joint statement of resolved and unresolved issues. (DE 25.)
Chief Judge Hood referred this motion to me for hearing and determination, and, ultimately, a hearing was held on September 6, 2019, at which attorneys Michael N. Hanna and Michelle R. Heikka appeared. (DEs 19, 20.) The Court entertained oral argument on the motion, after which the Court issued its ruling from the bench.
For the reasons stated on the record, all of which are incorporated herein by reference, Plaintiff's July 30, 2019 second motion to compel (DE 18), as narrowed by the joint statement of resolved and unresolved issues (DE 25), is DENIED. In sum, Defendant has sufficiently shown that the communications in question are subject to the attorney-client privilege, Defendant did not waive the privilege, and Defendant has not asserted an advice of counsel affirmative defense.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
