KEATING v. EQUISOFT INC. et al

Filing 43

ORDER THAT THE (24) DOCUMENTS THAT EQUISOFT HAS PRODUCED IN REDACTED FORM ON THE BASIS OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND/OR THE WORK PRODUCT DOCTRINE MAY REMAIN REDACTED AS PRESENTED TO THE COURT, BUT EQUISOFT SHALL PRODUCE DOCUMENT 253 IN REDACTED FORM PURSUANT TO THE COURT'S ACCOMPANYING MEMORANDUM. ( SIGNED BY HONORABLE GENE E.K. PRATTER ON 6/28/12. ) 7/2/12 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(gn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DANIEL KEATING,
Plaintiff,
v.
THOMAS McCAHILL, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 11-518

ORDER
AND NOW, this 28th day of June, 2012, upon consideration of the submissions of the
parties relating to Plaintiff Daniel Keating’s request that the Court conduct an in camera review
of certain documents on Defendants’ privilege log to determine whether the communications at
issue are shielded from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and/or the work product
doctrine, it is hereby ORDERED that the twenty-four (24) documents that Equisoft has produced
in redacted form on the basis of attorney-client privilege and/or the work product doctrine may
remain redacted as presented to the Court, but Equisoft shall produce Document 253 in redacted
form pursuant to the Court’s accompanying Memorandum.
It is so ORDERED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Gene E.K. Pratter
GENE E.K. PRATTER
United States District Judge