United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division
DECISION AND ENTRY SETTING FORTH RULINGS FOLLOWING IN
CAMERA REVIEW OF VARIOUS DISCOVERY DOCUMENTS
H. RICE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
14, 2017, the Court issued a Decision and Entry ruling on
several discovery-related motions, and directed counsel to
submit several documents for an in camera review.
Pharmacia's/Plaintiffs' Answers to
and Defendant Pharmacia LLC ("Pharmacia") each
moved to compel answers to outstanding interrogatories. Docs.
##647, 654. The Court sustained those motions and directed
counsel to submit the answers for an in camera
review. Given that counsel for Pharmacia has notified the
Court that she instead submitted Pharmacia's answers
directly to Plaintiffs, the Court assumes that there is no
need for judicial review.
for Plaintiffs have submitted "Plaintiffs'
Supplemental Responses to Defendant Pharmacia LLC's
Contention Interrogatories to Plaintiffs Hobart Corporation,
Kelsey-Hayes Company and NCR Corporation." As requested
by Pharmacia, these answers are now in a narrative format.
Having reviewed the Supplemental Responses, the Court finds
that they constitute a satisfactory response to
Pharmacia's contention interrogatories. Accordingly,
Plaintiffs are directed to provide them to Pharmacia.
Dayton Power and Light Co./Waste Management of Ohio
Dayton Power and Light Co. ("DP&L") and Waste
Management of Ohio ("WMO") also moved to compel
certain discovery responses from Plaintiffs. Docs. ##651,
652. As requested, Plaintiffs' counsel has submitted one
redacted copy and one unredacted copy of each of the
documents at issue, along with a cover letter setting forth
the reasons for each redaction. Plaintiffs maintain that
these documents are protected from disclosure by the
attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or
attorney-client privilege protects against disclosure of
communications between an attorney and his or her client.
Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 395
(1981). The work product doctrine is codified in Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 26(b)(3):
(A) Documents and Tangible Things. Ordinarily, a
party may not discover documents and tangible things that are
prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for
another party or its representative (including the other
party's attorney, consultant, surety, indemnitor,
insurer, or agent). But, subject to Rule 26(b)(4), those
materials may be discovered if:
(i) they are otherwise discoverable under Rule 26(b)(1);
(ii) the party shows that it has substantial need for the
materials to prepare its case and cannot, without undue
hardship, obtain their substantial equivalent by other
(B) Protection Against Disclosure. If the court
orders discovery of those materials, it must protect against
disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions,
or legal theories of a party's attorney or other
representative concerning the litigation.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3).
Deficient Privilege Log
initial matter, the Court must determine whether Plaintiffs
have in any way waived the attorney-client privilege by
failing to include it on their privilege log as a basis for
withholding summaries of interviews of former NCR employees,
conducted by Larry Strayer, Susan Chema and Larry Silver. The
privilege log asserts only "attorney ...