Ward v. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al

Filing 67

SUR-REPLY to Response to Motion re 59 MOTION to Compel (Reply to Response to Motion to Compel - Dkt. 58) MOTION to Compel (Reply to Response to Motion to Compel - Dkt. 58) and Defendant's Motion to Amend or Clarify the March 30, 2009 Order Regarding Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege filed by Cisco Systems, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Proposed Order)(Babcock, Charles) Modified on 6/8/2009 to add text (cap).

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS TEXARKANA DIVISION JOHN WARD, JR. v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. C. A. NO. 08-4022 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH THE COURT'S MARCH 30, 2009 ORDER AND FOR SANCTIONS AND DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO AMEND OR CLARIFY THE MARCH 30, 2009 ORDER REGARDING WAIVER OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE CAME TO BE HEARD John Ward, Jr.'s ("Ward") Motion to Compel Compliance with the Court's March 30, 2009 Order and for Sanctions (the "Motion for Sanctions") and Defendants' Motion to Amend or Clarify the March 30, 2009 Order Regarding Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege ("Motion to Amend or Clarify"). The Court, having considered the motions and responses of the parties and responses, if any, is of the opinion that the Motion for Sanctions should be DENIED and that the Motion to Amend or Clarify should be GRANTED. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that: Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions is DENIED. Defendants' Motion to Amend or Clarify is GRANTED. The Court hereby modifies its Order dated March 30, 2009 clarifying that (1) the Order relates only to Cisco's interrogatory responses; (2) there has been no waiver of Cisco's attorney-client privilege; (3) there has been no waiver of Cisco's work product protection. 5528752v.1 SIGNED this _____ day of _______, 2008 JUDGE PRESIDING 5528752v.1

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?