![]() "Opinion" work-product reveals mental impressions or opinions of an attorney, and is not discoverable. Furthermore, work-product documents fall into two categories. May 22, 2007) ("The work product doctrine protects materials prepared by an attorney in anticipation of litigation"). The work-product doctrine protects: 1) "documents and tangible things otherwise discoverable" 2) prepared "by or for another party or by or for that other party's representative" 3) "in anticipation of litigation or for trial." Fed.R.Civ.P. Petitioners similarly claim that several of the documents withheld by McDonald's on the basis of work-product doctrine should be produced.Because the Court has been able to perform this in camera review, and through such a review determine the applicability of the given privileges, it is unnecessary for McDonald's to provide any further information. "The purpose of a privilege log is to enable the opposing party and the Court to evaluate the applicability of the asserted privilege. Additionally, the context given in the privilege log sufficiently allowed the Court to determine the nature of the documents during it's in camera review, and assess whether each document was privileged. Even if McDonald's privilege log had failed to meet the required elements initially, the situation was remedied by the information provided in the response. Furthermore, McDonald's provided additional detail regarding the documents on the privilege log in response to Petitioners' current motion, addressing each of Petitioners' questions and concerns surrounding the privileges asserted. Without revealing privileged information, McDonald's addressed each necessary element of a privilege log. A party need not give information to the point that the privilege is waived or becomes meaningless. As explained above, Rule 26 mandates that in asserting a privilege a party must provide sufficient detail, but "without revealing information in itself privileged or protected." Fed.R.Civ.P. In light of an in camera review of the documents that Petitioners suspected to be non-privileged, the Court finds that McDonald's log provides adequate information.Accordingly, Petitioners' motion to compel further discovery within the three established categories is denied. The Court finds no basis upon which to find that McDonald's has not complied with its discovery obligations. ![]() McDonald's has spent an extraordinary amount of time and money to comply with the Court's order. ![]() 1995) (holding that materials produced by the parties, and defendant's assertion that plaintiffs were withholding discoverable documents, did not suggest that plaintiffs were in fact withholding relevant documents). June 15, 2006) (denying a motion to compel and holding that there was no reason to doubt plaintiff's representation that it had no documents responsive to discovery requests, despite defendant's belief and evidence to the contrary) Cohn v. ![]() ![]() See, e.g., Retail Experts Consulting Mgmt., Inc. The evidence and speculation on which Petitioners base their belief is simply insufficient to support their motion to compel. As explained above, based on documents produced by McDonald's, as well as Petitioners' own notions of what is conceivable for McDonald's to possess, Petitioners argue that McDonald's has discoverable documents in its possession that have been withheld. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |