Christenbury v. Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell, LLP
District Court, N.D. Georgia
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
JUSTIN S. ANAND, United States Magistrate Judge.
The two sides in this professional negligence case present dueling motions to compel, each seeking privileged communications held by the other. The parties generally agree that all or most of the documents they seek were once privileged, but argue that any privileges have been waived for various reasons. The matter is now before the undersigned to resolve this clash.1 For the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ Motion to Compel Production [22] is GRANTED IN PART, and DENIED IN PART and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Production [27] is DENIED.
2Cases cited25 opinions
- United States v. ReynoldsSupreme Court of the United States · 1953
- Hearn v. RhayDistrict Court, E.D. Washington · 1975
- United States v. Donald E. JacobsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1997
- United Coal Companies v. Powell Construction Company and Interstate Equipment Corporation and Bethlehem Steel CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1988
- In the Matter of International Horizons, Inc., Debtor. International Horizons, Inc., and Touche Ross & Company v. The Committee of Unsecured CreditorsCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1982
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Yung v. Grant Thornton, LLPMissouri Court of Appeals · 2018
- Camacho v. Nationwide Mutual InsuranceDistrict Court, N.D. Georgia · 2012
- Guarantee Insurance v. Heffernan Insurance Brokers, Inc.District Court, S.D. Florida · 2014
- Daryl Moody v. Hill, Kertsher & Wharton, LLPCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2018
- Brown v. Global Employment Solutions, Inc.District Court, N.D. Georgia · 2017