Townsend v. Bayer Corporation et al
ORDER granting in part and denying in part pltf's 35 Motion to Compel; the motion is granted as to exhibit numbers 33-68. Signed by Judge James M. Moody on 8/31/12. (vjt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
NO. 5:11CV00055 JMM
BAYER HEALTHCARE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
Pending is Plaintiff’s motion to compel. (Docket # 35). Plaintiff seeks to obtain
copies of certain documents to which the Defendants claim a privilege. The Court has
reviewed the privilege log along with the documents in camera. The Court finds that
Plaintiff’s motion should be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
The Court agrees with the Defendants that the documents appearing at exhibit
numbers 1-32, which have not been previously produced, are protected from discovery as
attorney-client communication. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is denied as to exhibits
The documents appearing at exhibits 33-68 are not protected from discovery.
Defendant claims that the documents are protected by both the attorney-client privilege
and work- product doctrine. However, the documents appear to have been produced in
the normal course of business and not in anticipation of litigation. There is no workproduct immunity for documents prepared in the regular course of business rather than
for purposes of litigation. Simon v. G.D. Searle & Co., 816 F.2d 397, 401 (8th Cir. 1987).
Further, these documents are not made privileged simply because they were provided to
or made by a lawyer. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is GRANTED as to exhibit numbers
IT IS SO ORDERED this 31st day of August, 2012.
James M. Moody
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?