Exmark Manufacturing Company Inc. v. Briggs & Stratton Power Product Group

Filing 276

ORDER - This matter is before the court following a telephone conference with counsel on February 6, 2015. Derek Vandenburgh and Joseph W. Winkels represented the plaintiff, Exmark Manufacturing Company Inc. (Exmark). Marc A. Cohn represented the defendant, Briggs & Stratton Power Products Group, LLC (Briggs). Rebecca D. Ward represented the defendant, Schiller Grounds Care, Inc. The court addressed Exmark's counsel's request for clarification of the court's Order (Filing N o. 274 ) regarding the disclosure of a document identified as 206 in Exmark's Privilege Log. The court requested and Exmark provided by facsimile document 206 for in camera review. After review, the court finds document 206 is Exmark's "Potential Patent Infringements" list. Therefore, as the list is protected under the attorney-client privilege as explained in the court's Order (Filing No. 274 ), document 206 is privileged. While Exmark is not compelled to produc e the list, Exmark may not assert the attorney-client privilege as to underlying facts in the list, or any of the list's iterations, during the upcoming Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. Exmark's Rule 30(b)(6) deponent should be knowledgeable in the underlying factual content of the list. Exmark's facsimile submission will be separately filed under seal. IT IS SO ORDERED. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. (GJG)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

EXMARK MANUFACTURING
COMPANY INC.,
8:10CV187
Plaintiff,
vs.

ORDER

BRIGGS & STRATTON POWER
PRODUCTS GROUP, LLC and
SCHILLER GROUNDS CARE, INC.,
Defendants.
This matter is before the court following a telephone conference with counsel on
February 6, 2015.

Derek Vandenburgh and Joseph W. Winkels represented the

plaintiff, Exmark Manufacturing Company Inc. (Exmark). Marc A. Cohn represented the
defendant, Briggs & Stratton Power Products Group, LLC (Briggs). Rebecca D. Ward
represented the defendant, Schiller Grounds Care, Inc. The court addressed Exmark’s
counsel’s request for clarification of the court’s Order (Filing No. 274) regarding the
disclosure of a document identified as 206 in Exmark’s Privilege Log.

The court

requested and Exmark provided by facsimile document 206 for in camera review. After
review, the court finds document 206 is Exmark’s “Potential Patent Infringements” list.
Therefore, as the list is protected under the attorney-client privilege as explained in the
court’s Order (Filing No. 274), document 206 is privileged.

While Exmark is not

compelled to produce the list, Exmark may not assert the attorney-client privilege as to
underlying facts in the list, or any of the list’s iterations, during the upcoming Rule
30(b)(6) deposition. Exmark’s Rule 30(b)(6) deponent should be knowledgeable in the
underlying factual content of the list. Exmark’s facsimile submission will be separately
filed under seal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 6th day of February, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Thomas D. Thalken
United States Magistrate Judge