Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Daniel Keating v. Thomas Mccahill

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA


June 28, 2012

DANIEL KEATING, PLAINTIFF,
v.
THOMAS MCCAHILL, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gene E.K. Pratter United States District Judge

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:

Gene E.K. Pratter

20120628

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.