New Amsterdam Project Management Humanitarian Foundation v. Laughrin et al

Filing 74

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd granting in part and denying in part 73 Motion for Reconsideration re 73 Emergency MOTION for Reconsideration re 72 Order,,, OF THE COURT'S THIRD INTERIM ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO COM PEL DISCOVERYEmergency MOTION for Reconsideration re 72 Order,,, OF THE COURT'S THIRD INTERIM ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY filed by New Amsterdam Project Management Humanitarian Foundation (hrllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/21/2008)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NOT FOR CITATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION NEW AMSTERDAM PROJECT MANAGEMENT HUMANITARIAN FOUNDATION, a Dutch non-profit corporation, Plaintiff, v. KELLY M. LAUGHRIN, et al. Defendants. / In the October 15, 2008 interim order, this court found that plaintiff had not met the burden of proof required to vitiate claims of privilege. See In re Napster, Inc. Copyright Litigation, 479 F.3d 1078, 1094-95 (9th Cir. 2007) (imposing a preponderance of the evidence standard ). Rather than dismiss plaintiff's crime-fraud exception argument outright, the undersigned ordered defendants to produce documents for an in camera review based on the lesser showing plaintiff had made. Production of documents was ordered by October 21, 2008. Late in the day on October 20, plaintiff filed an "Emergency Motion for Clarification, or in the Alternative, Reconsideration of the Court's Third Interim Order on Plaintiff's Motions to Compel Discovery. It appears that plaintiff is unhappy with the court's plan to review only withheld documents before making its determination of whether to apply the crime-fraud exception. Plaintiff correctly points out that defendants have made an additional production of No.07-00935-JF (HRL) ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OR RECONSIDERATION OF THE THIRD INTERIM ORDER. * E-filed 10/21/08* United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 documents since it generated its court-ordered factual submission on the crime-fraud exception. Because the court ordered defendants to only produce those documents that they continue to withhold, plaintiff may submit any documents not previously filed that it believes supports application of the crime-fraud exception. Plaintiff must produce any such documents not later than October 25, 2008. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 10/21/08 HOWARD R. LLOYD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 THIS SHALL CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THIS ORDER WILL BE SENT TO: Heather Noelte hnoelte@dempseyjohnson.com John Mark Thacker jthacker@ropers.com * Counsel are responsible for providing copies of this order to co-counsel. United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?