Walker v. City of Pocatello et al
ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:1. Defendants do not need to produce the documents provided to the Court in Dkt. 49 to Walker. 2. Walker shall respond to Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 46 ) on or before October 24, 2017. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjs)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
Case No. 4:15-cv-00498-BLW
CITY OF POCATELLO, et. al.,
As explained in the Court’s earlier orders (Dkts. 26 & 48), there is a dispute
among the parties stemming from Kimberly Bristow’s declaration stating that there is an
email from Bybee to City employees (including Smith) where Bybee admonishes Mayor
Blad or Chief Marchand. To resolve that dispute, the Court ordered Defendants to
provide the Court with any emails from Bybee to Smith (including emails Smith was cc’d
on) from September 2015 – January 2016, plus documents with specific Bates numbers.
Defendants provided the Court with emails, and the Court conducted its review. The
Court saw no email reflecting what Bristow said in her declaration. (Dkt. 26).
However, since that review, additional emails came to light. The new emails came
from subsequent searches of individual computers, but not Bybee’s or Smith’s
computers. Accordingly, the Court ordered Defendants to search Bybee’s and Smith’s
computers, and provide the Court with all emails found on those computers which fit the
parameters set by the Court in its earlier order for in camera review. (Dkt. 48).
ORDER - 1
Defendants complied with the Order, and provided the Court with the documents under
seal. (Dkt. 49).
The Court set forth in detail the law and facts necessary for determining whether
documents are protected by the attorney-client privilege in this case in its first order
addressing these issues. (Dkt. 26). The Court will not repeat that standard here, but after
applying it, the Court finds that all the documents recently provided to the Court (Dkt.
49) are protected by the attorney-client privilege. Therefore, Defendants do not need to
produce them to Walker.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. Defendants do not need to produce the documents provided to the Court in
Dkt. 49 to Walker.
2. Walker shall respond to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 46)
on or before October 24, 2017.
DATED: October 10, 2017
B. Lynn Winmill
United States District Court
ORDER - 2
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?