Filed: Mar. 13, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 13, 2018
Summary: ORDER SUSAN M. BAZIS , Magistrate Judge . On February 13, 2018, the undersigned held a telephone conference with counsel of record to discuss a discovery dispute that had arisen in this case. During the conference, the parties advised that the discovery dispute had been resolved, with the exception that Defendants disagreed that entries dated 12/28/15, 12/29/15, 12/30/15, 2/2/16, 2/26/16 and 3/22/16 were privileged. Following the conference, Plaintiff was directed to submit the documents at
Summary: ORDER SUSAN M. BAZIS , Magistrate Judge . On February 13, 2018, the undersigned held a telephone conference with counsel of record to discuss a discovery dispute that had arisen in this case. During the conference, the parties advised that the discovery dispute had been resolved, with the exception that Defendants disagreed that entries dated 12/28/15, 12/29/15, 12/30/15, 2/2/16, 2/26/16 and 3/22/16 were privileged. Following the conference, Plaintiff was directed to submit the documents at ..
More
ORDER
SUSAN M. BAZIS, Magistrate Judge.
On February 13, 2018, the undersigned held a telephone conference with counsel of record to discuss a discovery dispute that had arisen in this case. During the conference, the parties advised that the discovery dispute had been resolved, with the exception that Defendants disagreed that entries dated 12/28/15, 12/29/15, 12/30/15, 2/2/16, 2/26/16 and 3/22/16 were privileged. Following the conference, Plaintiff was directed to submit the documents at issue to the Court for in camera review.1 Plaintiff submitted the documents as ordered.
The Court has reviewed the materials and concludes that they are, in fact, shielded from discovery by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. Therefore, Plaintiff will not be ordered to produce these items.
