Ward v. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al

Filing 77

RESPONSE to Motion re 75 MOTION for an Order Directing Cisco to Provide Identified Documents to the Court for In Camera Review filed by Cisco Systems, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, Tabs 1-4, # 2 Exhibit A, Tabs 5-6, # 3 Exhibit A, Tabs 7-8, # 4 Exhibit A, Tab 9, # 5 Exhibit B, # 6 Exhibit C, # 7 Exhibit D, # 8 Order)(Babcock, Charles)

Ward v. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al

Doc. 77 Att. 5

Case 4:08-cv-04022-JLH Document 77-6

Filed 06/30/09 Page 1 of 4

EXHIBIT "C"

Dockets.Justia.com

Ward v. Cisco submission log

Case 4:08-cv-04022-JLH Document 77-6

Filed 06/30/09 Page 2 of 4

Page 1 of 3

Parker, Crystal
From: Parker, Crystal Sent: To: Cc: Monday, June 22, 2009 11 17 AM 'Patricia L. Peden Babcock. Chip nickpatton@texarkanalaw com, 'Marcie Long' 'Geoff Culbertson'

Subject: RE Ward v Cisco submission log Patty, Powell testified that she couldn't find her notes about her call to the court clerk, but on October 22 she sent an email about the call to Kurt Pancratz I think that is the document you are referring to, it was produced by Baker Botts as BB_00010, It is on the privilege log and the submission log (CISCO PRIVILEGED.000009)

Crystal Parker Jackson Walker L.L.P. 713-752-4217

From: Patricia L. Peden [mailto:ppedenİpedenlawfirm.com ] Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 9:32 PM To: Parker, Crystal Cc: Babcock, Chip; [e-mail] ; 'Marcie Long'; 'Geoff Culbertson' Subject: RE: Ward v. Cisco submission log Crystal: don't think the Baker Bc ts documents are logged or Cisco's privilege og, I can't find the e.mail p roduced at H a 0010 (Poweg s notes about her :rah to the court ci rk) on Ci huh:: privilege log, if Urn, wrong, please jet rne know. That leads rne to believe that none of the Baker Botts documents have beer included on Cisco's log. We can identity the BP doci know about, brit that won't answer the question about documents that Baiter Botts gave to Cisco that weren't produced in the Albritton case. We need to get a privilege log y includes the Baker Butts documents (including those in Cisco's possession but not produced to Albritton) before we identify Li p ari-rents t,r the Combs reviev, Thanks, Patty From: Patricia L. Peden [mailto:ppedenOpedenlawfirm.com] Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 3:39 PM To: 'Parker, Crystal' Cc: 'Babcock, Chip'', '[e-mail] '; 'Marcie Long'; 'Geoff Culbertson' Subject: RE: Ward v. Cisco submission log Crystal' Great. Thar.kpo Patty From: Parker, Crystal [[e-mail] ] Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 3:30 PM To: Patricia L. Peden Cc: Babcock, Chip; nickpatton4texarkanalaw.com ; Marcie Long; Geoff Culbertson Subject: RE: Ward v. Cisco submission log Patty, The privilege log is current. I believe that all the Baker Botts documents are on it; if you see that any are missing please let me know. With respect to the statement where Frenkel said he received an email "suggesting that ESN's local counsel called the EDTX court clerk.. " in the October 18th Post, we have already identified it in the Interrogatory response and produced it. It is #2 for the October 18 Article on the interrogatory responses Thanks, Crystal J. Parker Jackson Walker L.L.P. 713-752-4217

From: Patricia L. Peden [mailto:[e-mail]] Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 4:52 PM To: Parker, Crystal Cc: Babcock, Chip; [e-mail] ; 'Marcie Long'; 'Geoff Culbertson' Subject: RE: Ward v. Cisco submission log Crystai: didn't mean to suggest that you are withholding a p rivilege bag. You are not. We have Crtc q 's privijege log. I just wart to make 3Uf e that t Sr re vara have is current since part es don't ne.cessarily send a privaege log each time 3 document is added. lf it it 3.3,e.rit, then we a-n good to go. rf it is not, pieese send a current jog. Also, ; just wanted to make, sure that ail the Baker ESC:7;'; documerts were included because some Baker Botts's documents were produced ir Albtritcm with Cisco bates numbers, so it is · ard ta know tor if Baker Botts', ducarreiits are on .C , SC0 . 5 ag. Thar the referenced in Frennens Octobe.r 1,c," cost. It o not listed in Cisco's rog responses, don't know which ernad Cirsvicktw. that emaji is key gjven that Frenkel wrote about jt. Please let me know what the bates nkrnber of rhar ernail rs so that we can make sure it is or the iog , if it has not been prodJfteL-., Thanks,
patty

From: Parker, Crystal [[e-mail] ] Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 2:20 PM To: Patricia L. Peden Cc: Babcock, Chip; [e-mail] ; Marcie Long; Geoff Culbeitson Subject: RE: Ward v. Cisco submission log

6/29/2009

Ward v. Cisco submission log

Case 4:08-cv-04022-JLH Document 77-6

Filed 06/30/09 Page 3 of 4

Page 2 of 3

Patty, I just sent an email about this, but in addition I would add that we are not withholding a privilege log from you; I provided it months ago If you need another copy, I are happy to prov de it. The Baker Botts documents we received are already on the Thank you,

Crystal J. Parker Jackson Walker L L.P 713-752-4217

From: Patricia L. Peden [mailto:ppedenOpedeniawfirm.com] Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 4:15 PM To: Parker, Crystal Cc: Babcock, Chip; [e-mail] ; 'Marcie Long'; 'Geoff Culbertson' Subject: RE: Ward v. Cisco submission log Importance: High Crystal:

The Court di . not iirnit Ins in comera review to the dorufneins produced in the Albritton case. That would make no se · se in light of the arguments rrade in the parties briefing, the scope of waiver the Court ordered, and our explanation that the Albritton Agreement was flavved in that it let Cisco pick and choose which docurrients wanted to produce. The Court is not going to v,rant to conduct an in numeric: review twice, which is exactly what will happen if the Court affiriris the fVlarch 30 Order arid Cisco continues to withhold documents on its privilege log. Moreover, the Court ordered irs to agree on the scope of the admission. Cisco's position that it is going to submit oniy the Albritton documents. 'whether we or ;IOC, is unacceptable. We asked for a updated privilege !op, from Cisco so that we could make a reasonable selection from the documents that Cisco is withholding. . in not provide it to us, we request that all documents on Cisco's privilege log be submitted to Judge liendren. In addition, any documents in Cisco's pos.session receivee3 from Baker Botts should be included. Finally, we would like the email referenced in Frenkel's October 18, 2007 Post, wherein he says he received an email stating that ESN calied the court clerk provided to the Court for in camera review. I don't believe that document has been produced in this CASft. If it has, please give me the production number so we can verify that we have it. If Cisco doesn't have it, please list it on the log anyway and tell the Court that it is unavailable. Sittce the submission most be a joint submission, we will not sign off on Cisco's submission until these items are included. Marcie is reviewing Cisco's proposed submission iog to ensure that all of the documents produced in the Aibritton case have been listed. We shauid be able tis get back to
yOtt about the completeness of the log in this respect by Tuesday of next week. Hopefully, Judge Hendren is available for clarification of Mr sstio on Monday so tnat we

will ilave time to get the other documents identified on the log before Friday's submission. hanks,
Patty

From: Parker, Crystal [mailto:cparkergjw.com] Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 1:13 PM To: Patricia L. Peden; nickpattonettexarkanalaw.com Cc: Babcock, Chip; Flynn-DuPart, Mary Lou; Adair, Kathy; Marcie Long Subject: RE: Ward v. Cisco submission log
Patty, We all agreed that Cisco would produce to the Court m camera the privileged documents CiAc0 produced in the Albritton ease I believe the log contains all of those documents. If you wlli let trie whether there are any documents produced in the Albritton case that were not identified, we will add them to the list. Otherwise, we will vet the documents to the Coon Thanks, Crystal J. Parker

Jackson Walker L.L.P.
713-752-4217

From: Patricia L. Peden fmailto:[e-mail]] Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 12:32 PM To: Parker, Crystal; [e-mail] Cc: Babcock, Chip; Flynn-DuPart, Mary Lou; Adair, Kathy; 'Marcie Long' Subject: RE: Ward v. Cisco submission log
Crystal: ke us a day cr tvito 70 do that and get bar , to Csco' log should also incluoe the documents suet Baker Botts gave Cisco for pi-oductior ir the Altriritton case. A.so, Int-e t are :fru:Ur-nerds on Cisino's priv Igr_f log separate and av3rt,_ tre ssocuinents produced lit the Albr itton case that should ne surd-r. r itted. We will identity those docu · ents for .atilusion on Cisco's l ist Can yip :a con f m tor fee t:ttat prte 5;tti. not ,hanged since it vtitJlt prOducted to 'Na a:7' If a ddit.onal documents have been logged on C isco's p riil ege itug, please pr pviee Lit, w iT1 v t t:pdated pc": ci.,· I. zne documents ivive would like suorrstred te JUdge Hendren. Finally, you may ,eitint to include d co l udei en tne Is, reit of the submission log that numbe r,. -··: . questic p s aboot the doeurcents and wants ftirsiher ar-iiinent, it help, to be ub!e to citycuss the cloc,rients . 7V nJtrtet Pat'.ty
We will look thrissugh tne list and son t ior teat it elf:luaus ail of ',use docbrneiss produced in the Albiitron case.. Is

From: Parker, Crystal [mailto:[e-mail]] Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 7:58 AM To: [e-mail] ; nickpattong.texarkanalaw.com Cc: Babcock, Chip; Flynn-DuPart, Mary Lou; Adair, Kathy Subject: Ward v. Cisco submission log

6/29/2009

Ward v. Cisco submission log

Case 4:08-cv-04022-JLH Document 77-6

Filed 06/30/09 Page 4 of 4

Page 3 of 3

Ğ DOCSOPEN-#5536654-v2-Privileged_Documents_Produced in_Albritton_v Cisco_case DOC>, Patty and Nick, Attached is the submission log containing all the privileged documents produced under the Protective Order and non-waiver agreements in the Albritton v. Cisco case (except one as described below). As we agreed in our hearing with Judge Hendren, Cisco will submit these documents for in camera inspection on or before next Friday Judge Hendren asked us to come to an agreement regarding this list_ Please confirm that these are all the privileged documents produced under the Protective Order and non-waiver agreements in the Albritton. v. Cisco case. You will notice that one document is missing: CISCO PRIVILEGED.000014, which was inadvertently produced as a privileged document, when it is only responses to privileged documents but not itself privileged. I will have it bates labeled and produced to you as a non-privileged document before we submit these documents to Judge Hendren. Take care,

Crystal J. Parket Jackson Walker I. I..P 1400 McKinney, Suite 1900 Houston, TX 77010 713-752-4200 (main) 713-752-4217 (direct) 713-752-4221 (main fax) 713-734-6717 (direct fax) Email: aaarkerqjw com Internet Emall Confidential ity PrivilegediCionfidential Information rnay be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the messa g e to the addressee), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. The statements contained herein are not intended to and do not constitute an opinion as to any tax or other matter. They are not intended or written to be used, and may not be relied upon, by you or any other person for the purpose of avoiding, penalties that may be Unposed under any Federal tax law or othenvise.

6/29/2009