Roe et al v. Estate of Thomas White et al

Filing 1248

ORDER REGARDING OBJECTION. Signed by Judge Nathanael M. Cousins on July 16, 2014. (nclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/16/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

10
11 JOSE ROE, and others,

Case No. 03-cv-04035 CRB (NC)

12

ORDER REGARDING OBJECTION

13

Plaintiffs,
v.

Re: Dkt. No. 1247

14 THOMAS F. WHITE, and others,
15

Defendants.

16
17

Defendant White today objected to the Court’s order following in camera review,

18 requesting that the Court “modify the Order by requiring that the entire chat without
19 redactions be produced for in camera review.” Dkt. No. 1247 at 1. The Court now clarifies
20 that it did review in camera an unredacted chat, titled “Roe v. White 00322.” The Court’s
21 order found that the document as a whole was not privileged as claimed, but that there were
22 references to a privileged communication with counsel that should be redacted. The Court
23 therefore ordered that a redacted version of the document be produced, subject to the
24 Court’s review to ensure the redactions are sufficiently narrow.
25

Any party may object to this order within fourteen days. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).

26

IT IS SO ORDERED.

27

Date: July 16, 2014

28
Case No. 03-cv-04035 CRB (NC)
ORDER REGARDING OBJECTION

_________________________
Nathanael M. Cousins
United States Magistrate Judge