In re Om Group Securities Litigation
District Court, N.D. Ohio
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
VECCHIARELLI, United States Magistrate Judge.
On October 5, 2004, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel, requesting the Court to compel *583the Audit Committee to produce the documents listed on the Audit Committee’s privilege log relating to its investigation.1 (Doc. No. 254.) For the reasons set forth in detail below, Plaintiffs Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 254) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Specifically, the work-product doctrine does not protect any of the Log Entries. All of the Log Entries are protected by the attorney-client privilege,2 unless the privilege was waived, except for…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- United States v. Louis KovelCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1961
- In Re: Sealed CaseCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1998
- Reed v. BaxterCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1998
- In Re Perrigo CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1997
- In re Grand Jury Proceedings October 12, 1995Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1996
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- United States v. RoxworthyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2006
- In Re Vioxx Products Liability LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. Louisiana · 2007
- Invesco Institutional (N.A.), Inc. v. PaasDistrict Court, W.D. Kentucky · 2007
- Center Partners, Ltd. v. Growth Head GP, LLCIllinois Supreme Court · 2012
- Securities & Exchange Commission v. Microtune, Inc.District Court, N.D. Texas · 2009
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.