Dawson, et al v. Goldman Sachs & Co.
Filing
65
ORDER granting 62 Goldman Sachs' Unopposed Motion for Entry of Order Regarding Privilege/Confidentiality Review of Third-Party Documents by Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 5/5/14.(sgrim)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya
Civil Action No. 13BcvB02030BCMABKMT
CLINTON J. DAWSON, and
JANELL DAWSON,
Plaintiffs,
v.
GOLDMAN SACHS & COMPANY,
Defendant.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on “Goldman Sachs’ Unopposed Motion for Entry of
Order Regarding Privilege/Confidentiality Review of Third-Party Documents” (Doc. No. 62),
For good cause shown, it is hereby
ORDERED that said Motion (Doc. No. 62) is GRANTED. Mr. Wyatt shall produce to
counsel of record for Goldman Sachs in this proceeding copies of the documents he intends to
produce in response to plaintiffs’ subpoena before disclosing them to plaintiffs or otherwise in
this proceeding. Counsel for Goldman Sachs shall promptly review those documents for
privilege and confidentiality. Any documents counsel for Goldman Sachs believes are subject to
claims of privilege or other right of non-disclosure shall be identified on a privilege log and
segregated for further handling. The privilege log and all other documents produced by Mr.
Wyatt (those not subject to claims of privilege or other right of nondisclosure) shall be promptly
provided to counsel for plaintiffs.
Mr. Wyatt shall also be provided with a copy of the privilege log. Documents subject to
a claim of privilege shall not be disclosed to plaintiffs absent agreement of the parties or further
order of this Court. All other rights of the parties with respect to the documents produced by
Mr. Wyatt, including with respect to the original documents in Mr. Wyatt’s possession, are
preserved.
Dated this 5th day of May, 2014.
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?