High Point Sarl v. Sprint Nextel Corporation et al
Filing
859
ORDER ADOPTING SPECIAL MASTER'S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON PRIVILEGED DOCUMENTS AFTER REVIEW OF MISLABELED DOCUMENTS. No objections or motion to review the Special Master's Second Supplemental Report and Recommendatio ns was filed within the 21-day time period provided in Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(f)(2). Accordingly, the Court hereby adopts in full the Special Master's recommendations contained in his 850 Second Supplemental Report (ECF No. 850). Signed by Magistrate Judge David J. Waxse on 9/19/2012. (byk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
HIGH POINT SARL,
Plaintiff and Counterclaim
Defendant,
v.
SPRINT NEXTEL
CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants and
Counterclaimants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIVIL ACTION
Case No. 09-2269-CM-DJW
ORDER ADOPTING SPECIAL MASTER’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON PRIVILEGED DOCUMENTS
AFTER REVIEW OF MISLABELED DOCUMENTS
On August 23, 2012, the Special Master filed his Second Supplemental Report and
Recommendations on Privileged Documents After Review of Mislabeled Documents (ECF No.
850). In the report, the Special Master reviewed a group of documents submitted by Avaya that had
been mislabeled for the Special Master’s prior in camera inspection. As a result of the Special
Master’s review of the mislabeled documents, he sustained Avaya’s assertion of privilege with
regard to all but one of the mislabeled documents.
No objections or motion to review the Special Master’s Second Supplemental Report and
Recommendations was filed within the 21-day time period provided in Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(f)(2).
Accordingly, the Court hereby adopts in full the Special Master’s recommendations contained in his
Second Supplemental Report (ECF No. 850).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated in Kansas City, Kansas on this 19th day of September 2012.
s/ David J. Waxse
David J. Waxse
U.S. Magistrate Judge
cc:
All counsel and pro se parties
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?