Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Martinez v. MXI Corp., 3:15-cv-00243-MMD-VPC. (2016)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20160926772 Visitors: 9
Filed: Aug. 08, 2016
Latest Update: Aug. 08, 2016
Summary: PRITCHARD DEFENDANTS AND PLAINTIFFS' STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING NON-WAIVER OF PRIVILEGES VALERIE P. COOKE , Magistrate Judge . COME NOW Defendants PAULA PRITCHARD, KATHLEEN ROBBINS, IAN MURRAY, JUDY MURRAY, SANDY CHAMBERS and KERRY DEAN (collectively the "Pritchard Defendants"), by and through their counsel, Kaempfer Crowell, and with Plaintiffs ENRIQUE MARTINEZ, MICHELLE MARTINEZ, SUNSHINE MARTINEZ-VALDEZ, BECKIE LOBB and PAULA WILSON hereby stipulate to the following. Stipulation an
More

PRITCHARD DEFENDANTS AND PLAINTIFFS' STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING NON-WAIVER OF PRIVILEGES

COME NOW Defendants PAULA PRITCHARD, KATHLEEN ROBBINS, IAN MURRAY, JUDY MURRAY, SANDY CHAMBERS and KERRY DEAN (collectively the "Pritchard Defendants"), by and through their counsel, Kaempfer Crowell, and with Plaintiffs ENRIQUE MARTINEZ, MICHELLE MARTINEZ, SUNSHINE MARTINEZ-VALDEZ, BECKIE LOBB and PAULA WILSON hereby stipulate to the following.

Stipulation and Order Regarding Non-Waiver of Privileges

WHEREAS, on August 4, 2016, the Court ruled that the Pritchard Defendants were to provide access to their personal email accounts in granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel.

As a result of that ruling, the undersigned counsel engaged in discussions to use an independent third party vendor to collect and safeguard the Pritchard Defendants emails pending an agreement by the undersigned counsel as to the protocol for protecting privileged information.

Counsel have mutually agreed to utilize the services of David Field, ACE | Forensic Discovery Technician, XACT DATA DISCOVERY, 733 Marquette Ave South, Suite 125, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 ("Third Party Vendor").

It was agreed upon by counsel that use of a Third Party Vendor in e-discovery was the most efficient means to comply with the court's ruling and became necessary to ensure the subject files remain intact. However, counsel hereby agree that the use of the Third Party Vendor in no way constitutes a waiver of the attorney-client privilege that may apply to the content uncovered.

Counsel also agreed to negotiate a stipulated protocol to govern the production of the Pritchard Defendants' emails to protect for privilege before any emails or documents are produced to Plaintiffs. If the parties cannot agree, the court will be enlisted to provide guidance.

As such, the Third Party Vendor has agreed to hold, safeguard, and preserve the information collected unless and until counsel enter into an agreement regarding the protocol for production or the Court issues an order addressing the same.

Counsel hereby agree that there shall be no waiver of the attorney client privilege and work product privilege, along with any other applicable privileges, by disclosure by the Pritchard Defendants of their personal email accounts and corresponding information contained therein to the Third Party Vendor.

The parties agree that, pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 502, the disclosure during discovery of any communication or information that is protected by privilege, including but not limited to those defined by Fed. R. Evid. 502, or work-product protection, shall not waive the privilege or protection in the above-captioned case, or any other federal or state proceeding, for either the document or the subject matter of the document.

All email account disclosures made to the Third Party Vendor are to be regarded as necessary to comply with the Court's August 4, 2016 ruling and their disclosure to the Third Party Vendor shall be regarded as confidential and privileged and the producing party is hereby deemed to have taken "reasonable steps to prevent disclosure," regardless of any argument or circumstances suggesting otherwise. Pursuant to FRE 502(d), "A federal court may order that the privilege or protection is not waived by disclosure connected with the litigation pending before the court — in which event the disclosure is also not a waiver in any other federal or state proceeding."

Whereas, the parties have contemplated the foregoing, stipulated, and hereby request the entry of an order providing, that all privileges and work product protection shall not be waived under the certain circumstances, as specified herein.

IT IS SO STIPULATED by the undersigned.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION.

From: Adam Swick <aswick@rctlegal.com> Sent: Monday, August 8, 2016 3:32 PM To: Lesley Miller Cc: Michelle Diegel; Karen Shuman; Ben King; Beret Flom Subject: RE: Stipulation and Order Regarding NonWaiver (Final for Signatures) (002).DOCX

You have my permission to sign for me and file.

Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device

--------Original message-------- From: Lesley Miller <LMiller@kcnvlaw.com> Date: 8/8/2016 4:38 PM (GMT-06:00) To: Adam Swick <aswick@rctlegal.com> Cc: Michelle Diegel <MDiegel@kcnvlaw.com>, Karen Shuman <KShuman@kcnvlaw.com>, Ben King <bking@rctlegal.com>, Beret Flom <bflom@rctlegal.com> Subject: RE: Stipulation and Order Regarding NonWaiver (Final for Signatures) (002).DOCX

Adam,

With your permission, I will file this. It contains those additions/revisions.

Lesley

KAEMPFER

CROWELL

Lesley B. Miller

Kaempfer Crowell

1980 Festival Plaza Drive, Suite 650 Las Vegas, NV 89135-2958 Tel: (702) 792-7000 Fax: (702) 796-7181 Email: Imiller@kcnvlaw.com

BIO | WEBSITE | VCARD |

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer