Monsanto Company v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Company et al

Filing 853

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties shall: (1) exchange any further objections to the opposing party's privilige log on or before September 1, 2011; (2) meet and confer about those objections on or before September 7, 201 1; and (3) file a notice with the Court identifying the 100 withheld documents from the opposing party they would like the Court to review, and arrange to have any challenged documents from the newly-revised privilege logs provided to the Court, on or before September 12, 2011. Signed by Honorable E. Richard Webber on August 30, 2011. (MCB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

MONSANTO COMPANY and
MONSANTO TECHNOLOGY LLC,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY and PIONEER HI-BRED
INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:09CV00686 ERW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Monsanto Company and Monsanto
Technology LLC’s (“Monsanto”) Motion to Modify Court Order of July 22, 2011 [ECF No. 847]
and Defendants E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company and Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
(“Defendants”) Motion to Modify the Court’s July 22, 2011 Memorandum and Order [ECF No.
848].
In the July 22 Order, the Court ordered the parties, after reviewing and exchanging their
respective privilege logs, to produce any remaining challenged documents to the Court for in
camera review no later than August 26, and the parties are in agreement that this deadline must
be extended. It seems that the ordered review of privilege logs resulted in a substantial number
of documents being downgraded, and the current dispute concerns whether the parties should
have an opportunity to review the downgraded documents before deciding which documents still
designated as privileged they would like the Court to review in camera.
The Court finds that giving the parties the opportunity to review the downgraded
documents would only serve to protract this process, and the Court is confident that the parties

will manage to produce their downgraded documents as expeditiously as possible. Having
completed review of Defendants’ redacted documents and made substantial progress in
reviewing Monsanto’s redacted documents, it is also apparent to the Court that the assertions of
privilege on both sides have been, for the most part, largely appropriate, and the Court believes in
camera review of all claimed privileged documents is not indicated. Once the review of redacted
documents is completed, the Court will review 100 withheld documents from each party, and the
Court does not intend to examine more than those 200 documents, unless it begins to appear that
either party is abusing the attorney-client privilege. The 100 documents can be chosen from the
withheld privileged documents already submitted to the Court, or from the revised privilege logs
the parties have recently exchanged.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties shall: (1) exchange any further objections to
the opposing party’s privilege log on or before September 1, 2011; (2) meet and confer about
those objections on or before September 7, 2011; and (3) file a notice with the Court identifying
the 100 withheld documents from the opposing party they would like the Court to review, and
arrange to have any challenged documents from the newly-revised privilege logs provided to the
Court, on or before September 12, 2011.
Dated this 30th Day of August, 2011.

________________________________________
E. RICHARD WEBBER
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2