Ward v. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al

Filing 81

ORDER granting the motion portion of 75 Submission Log and Motion for an Order Directing Cisco to Provide Identified Documents to the Court for In Camera Review, and defendant, Cisco, is again ordered to produce to the Court, for in camera review, any and all documents which could be responsive to plaintiff's interrogatories numbers 5 and 6 and it is ordered that such production shall include, specifically, all documents listed in plaintiff's submission log; and that the in camera production be made within five (5) days from the date of this Order. Signed by Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren on July 8, 2009. (cap)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS TEXARKANA DIVISION JOHN WARD, JR. v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. ORDER Now on this 8th day of July, 2009, comes on for consideration Plaintiff John Ward, Jr.'s Submission Log and Motion for an Order Directing Cisco to Provide Identified Documents to the Court for In Camera Review (document #75) and the response thereto. The Civil No. 08-4022 DEFENDANT PLAINTIFF

Court, being well and sufficiently advised, finds and orders as follows: 1. The Court notes initially that, in addition to the

motion addressed by this Order, there is presently pending before the Court Plaintiff Ward's Motion to Compel Compliance with the Court's March 30, 2009 Order (document #61). Further, it will be

recalled that a conference call was held with the parties and the Court on June 12, 2009 to discuss the said motion to compel. Finally, it will further be recalled that, during that conference call, the Court ordered defendant to produce for in camera review all documents which could be responsive to plaintiff's

interrogatories number 5 & 6. Based on the history of this issue -- including multiple pleadings and telephone conference calls -- the Court believes

its directions were clear and that they need no "clarification." However, it appears there may be some confusion as to the Court's intent and, thus, the motion under discussion was filed. 2. Perhaps granting the motion portion of Plaintiff John

Ward, Jr.'s Submission Log and Motion for an Order Directing Cisco to Provide Identified Documents to the Court for In Camera Review (document #75) the will said serve motion to clear of up that that confusion. will be

Accordingly,

part

pleading

granted, as stated, and defendant, Cisco, will again be ordered to produce to the Court, for in camera review, any and all documents which could be responsive to plaintiff's interrogatories numbers 5 and 6 and it will be ordered that such production shall include, specifically, all documents listed in plaintiff's submission log. The Court will further order that the in camera production be made within five (5) days from the date of this Order. 3. Once the documents are produced to the Court as hereby

ordered, the Court will then review the documents with respect to any asserted privilege. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED: * that the motion portion of Plaintiff John Ward, Jr.'s

Submission Log and Motion for an Order Directing Cisco to Provide Identified Documents to the Court for In Camera Review (document #75) be, and it hereby is, granted;

-2-

*

that

defendant, Cisco, is again ordered to produce to

the Court, for in camera review, any and all documents which could be responsive to plaintiff's interrogatories numbers 5 and 6 and it is ordered that such production shall include, specifically, all documents listed in plaintiff's submission log; and * that the in camera production be made within five (5) days

from the date of this Order. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Jimm Larry Hendren JIMM LARRY HENDREN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-