STEINBUCH v. CUTLER

Filing 60

REPLY to opposition to motion re 56 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Leave to File Forty Nine Page Motion to Deem Rule 36 Requests Admitted, Motion to Compel Discovery, and Alternative Motion to Preclude Evidence and Incorporated Memorandum of Law filed by JESSICA CUTLER. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4)(Billips, Matthew)

STEINBUCH v. CUTLER

Doc. 60 Att. 2

CaCase 4:06-mc-00028-WRW se 1:05-cv-00970-PLF-JMF

Document 19 Filed 10/31/2006 Page 1 of 1 1 60-3 Filed 11/08/2006 Page 1 of

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION ROBERT STEINBUCH 4:06-MC-00028 WRW JESSICA CUTLER ORDER I have reviewed the "Privilege Log for UALR School of Law email account for R.E. Steinbuch" and Defendant's response to the Privilege Log (Doc. No. 18). Regarding a few of the emails, the University of Arkansas ("UA") asserted a privilege to either parts of or the entire email. The UA suggested that these email should either be withheld or have portions redacted. Because Defendant does not object to the UA's position, the emails where the UA asserts a privilege may be withheld or redacted accordingly. For the remaining emails, Plaintiff claims either "sensitive/confidential information" or "attorney/client" privilege. Plaintiff's claims of "sensitive/confidential information" do not constitute a privilege as I understand the law. With regard to the "attorney/client privilege," the only email that chins the pole is the July 2, 2006 email from RE. Steinbuch to [e-mail], since this Plaintiff's counsels email address. Excluding the emails where the UA asserts a privilege and the July 2, 2006 email mentioned in the next preceding paragraph, all other emails listed in the privilege log must be produced. IT IS SO ORDERED this 31st day of October, 2006. /s/ Wm. R.Wilson,Jr. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE RESPONDENT MOVANT

1

Dockets.Justia.com