LANOVAZ v. TWININGS NORTH AMERICA, INC., 5:12-cv-02646-RMW (HRL). (2015)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20151123789
Visitors: 8
Filed: Nov. 20, 2015
Latest Update: Nov. 20, 2015
Summary: SECOND INTERIM ORDER RE IN CAMERA REVIEW HOWARD R. LLOYD , Magistrate Judge . By November 30, 2015, defendant shall do the following: 1. Lodge a copy of PRIV_TW011 and PRIV_TW020 with the undersigned's chambers. 2. In its supplemental briefing, defendant has made assertions about the nature of its relationship with various third parties such that, defendant says, the attorney-client privilege applies to communications involving those third parties. Defendant shall submit whatever declara
Summary: SECOND INTERIM ORDER RE IN CAMERA REVIEW HOWARD R. LLOYD , Magistrate Judge . By November 30, 2015, defendant shall do the following: 1. Lodge a copy of PRIV_TW011 and PRIV_TW020 with the undersigned's chambers. 2. In its supplemental briefing, defendant has made assertions about the nature of its relationship with various third parties such that, defendant says, the attorney-client privilege applies to communications involving those third parties. Defendant shall submit whatever declarat..
More
SECOND INTERIM ORDER RE IN CAMERA REVIEW
HOWARD R. LLOYD, Magistrate Judge.
By November 30, 2015, defendant shall do the following:
1. Lodge a copy of PRIV_TW011 and PRIV_TW020 with the undersigned's chambers.
2. In its supplemental briefing, defendant has made assertions about the nature of its relationship with various third parties such that, defendant says, the attorney-client privilege applies to communications involving those third parties. Defendant shall submit whatever declaration(s) from appropriate person(s) are necessary to establish those assertions. See, e.g., Energy Capital Corp. v. United States, 45 Fed. Cl. 481, 492 (2000) ("A detailed factual showing is necessary to establish the relationship between the client and a third party that is sought to be included within the protection of the attorney-client privilege.").1 To the extent plaintiff feels it is truly necessary for resolution of the dispute re privilege issues, she may file a response (no more than 5 pages) to defendant's declaration(s). Any such response shall be filed no later than December 3, 2015.
SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. This court recognizes that its first interim order indicated that defendant's supplemental briefing was limited to no more than a 5-page supplemental brief. (Dkt. 168). Therefore, in an abundance of caution, this court will give defendant an opportunity to support assertions made in that brief.
Source: Leagle
