Bedrock Computer Technologies, LLC v. Softlayer Technologies, Inc. et al

Filing 689

HOTLINE ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge John D. Love on 03/31/11. cc:attys 3-31-11(mll, )

Download PDF
Bedrock Computer Technologies, LLC v. Softlayer Technologies, Inc. et al Doc. 689 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION BEDROCK COMPUTER, TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. SOFTLAYER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ET AL. No. 6:09cv269 LED-JDL JURY DEMANDED ORDER RE: "HOTLINE" HEARING PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE CV-26(g) Participants: Phillip Aurentz - Attorney for Bedrock Computer Technologies, LLC Todd Briggs - Attorney for Google, Inc. March 30, 2011 Deposition Questions and Attorney-Client Privilege Date: Action on: The case is assigned to United States Magistrate Judge John Love. The Court held a Hotline hearing between the above named parties to resolve a dispute regarding a line of deposition questioning that drew attorney-client privilege objections. Plaintiff argued that certain questions regarding Google's method of document collection should be answered. Counsel for Google contended such questions called for information protected by the attorney-client privilege. After hearing argument, the Court sustained Google's objection to the particular question presented to the Court during the hearing, but ordered the witness to answer questions to the extent the information called for did not result from attorney-client communications. The Court stated both parties were allowed to put their questions and objections on the record, but cautioned Plaintiff's counsel to frame questions so as to avoid an objection due to privilege. In addition, the Court . instructed Google that it may invoke the attorney-client privilege when appropriate, but Plaintiff was not precluded from seeking further relief from the Court. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 31st day of March, 2011. ___________________________________ JOHN D. LOVE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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?