Free Motion to Compel - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:01-cv-00201-VJW Martin Wolf
From: Sent: To: Subject: No problem.

Document 135-6

Filed 10/24/2005

Page 1 of 6

[email protected] Tuesday, August 02, 2005 3:41 PM [email protected] (Receipt Notification Requested) (IPM Return Requested) RE: July 28 Letter/Exhibit A

-----Original Message----From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 2:55 PM To: Bryant, Steven (ENRD) Subject: RE: July 28 Letter/Exhibit A Steve, You are correct. Marty -----Original Message----From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 2:41 PM To: [email protected] (Receipt Notification Requested) (IPM Return Requested) Cc: [email protected] (Receipt Notification Requested) (IPM Return Requested); [email protected] (Receipt Notification Requested) (IPM Return Requested); [email protected] (Receipt Notification Requested) (IPM Return Requested); [email protected] (Receipt Notification Requested) (IPM Return Requested); [email protected] (Receipt Notification Requested) (IPM Return Requested); [email protected] (Receipt Notification Requested) (IPM Return Requested) Subject: July 28 Letter/Exhibit A Marty, We are reviewing the documents you cited in your recent letter and the attachment, and I believe you may have misidentified a couple of the documents: 1) 2) OCE212721 - 213721 OCE212722 - 213727 I apologize for the careless mistake.

Am I correct in assuming you meant OCE 213721-213721 and OCE213722-213727? Thanks, Steve Bryant Trial Attorney Natural Resources Section Environment & Natural Resources Division U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 663 Washington D.C. 20044-0663 (v) 202-305-0424 (f) 202-305-0506 This e-mail (including any attachments) is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected by applicable law.
1

Case 1:01-cv-00201-VJW

Document 135-6

Filed 10/24/2005

Page 2 of 6

If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or use of this e-mail or its contents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by replying to this message, and please destroy all copies of this e-mail.

2

Case 1:01-cv-00201-VJW Martin Wolf
From: Sent: To: Subject: Marty, No need to send a hard copy. Steve

Document 135-6

Filed 10/24/2005

Page 3 of 6

[email protected] Friday, July 29, 2005 3:00 PM [email protected] (Receipt Notification Requested) (IPM Return Requested) RE: Letter dated 7-28-05 re Privilege

Have a good weekend.

-----Original Message----From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 5:42 PM To: Bryant, Steven (ENRD) Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Letter dated 7-28-05 re Privilege Steve,

The attached letter was mailed to you today. I believe Exhibit A may have been inadvertently omitted from the letter. Please accept this electronic version in its place, otherwise I will be happy to send a hard copy to you.

Best wishes.

Marty

1

Case 1:01-cv-00201-VJW

Document 135-6

Filed 10/24/2005

Page 4 of 6

Quinn, Gordon & Wolf, Chtd.
Kieron F. Quinn Richard S. Gordon Martin E. Wolf 40 West Chesapeake Avenue, Suite 408 Towson, Maryland 21204-4803 Telephone (410) 825-2300 Facsimile (410) 825-0066 _____ Harford County Office 104 Victory Lane, Suite 100 Bel Air, Maryland 21014 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

July 28, 2005 BY E-MAIL AND FIRST CLASS MAIL Steven Bryant, Esq. United States Department of Justice Environmental and Natural Resources Div. Natural Resources Section P.O. Box 663 Washington, D.C. 20044-0663 Re: Dear Steve: Please accept this letter as a good faith attempt to resolve disputes regarding discovery of certain documents withheld from production (or redacted) as subject to the attorney-client privilege, and/or the attorney work-product doctrine. This is also an attempt to resolve the dispute regarding the questions posed during the deposition of Joseph Czech, regarding what was described in the deposition as the "mystery project." The witness was instructed not to answer any questions about that project, not even questions asking for a description sufficient to identify it. Those instructions to Mr. Czech were based on the same attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product doctrines. The documents in dispute are listed on the attached Exhibit A by beginning and ending document number. With regard to the attorney-client privilege, please identify the attorney involved, the confidential nature of the communication, the position within the Department of the Navy for each recipient, the authority of each recipient within the Department of the Navy, and all persons to whom the document (or redacted material, as the case may be) has been disclosed, including the time up until the date of your response to this inquiry. With regard to the attorney work-product doctrine, please identify the attorney involved, the litigation that was anticipated at the time the document was prepared and disclosed, the litigation issues to which the document (or redacted material, as the case may be) is directed, and all persons to whom the document (or redacted material, as the case may be) has been disclosed, including the time up until the date of your response to this inquiry. Testwuide, et al. v. United States

Case 1:01-cv-00201-VJW Steven Bryant, Esq. July 28, 2005 Page 2

Document 135-6

Filed 10/24/2005

Page 5 of 6

The questions from the Czech Deposition begin on page 62 of the deposition transcript. They all refer to the work performed by Wyle for a project that was described as the "Mystery Project" during the Czech Deposition (see e.g., p. 69, line 17). With regard to the project, provide the same information set forth in the paragraph above for both the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine to the extent they are the basis for the instruction not to answer the respective questions. The information requested in this letter is necessary to evaluate the applicability of the attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product doctrine to the documents and questions in dispute. Once we have your response, we will determine if the disputes can be resolved without involving the Court in motion practice. Please contact me if you have any questions or wish to discuss these matters. Sincerely,

Martin E. Wolf Enclosure

Case 1:01-cv-00201-VJW

Document 135-6

Filed 10/24/2005

Page 6 of 6

EXHIBIT A Beginning Document End Document

OCE213540 OCE213574 OCE213585 OCE213627 OCE213632 OCE213633 OCE213635 OCE213636 OCE213638 OCE213642 OCE213646 OCE213647 OCE213650 OCE213652 OCE213655 OCE213659 OCE213663 OCE213664 OCE213665 OCE213683 OCE213716 OCE213717 OCE213721 OCE213722 OCE213730 OCE213731 OCE213741

OCE213540 OCE213578 OCE213585 OCE213631 OCE213632 OCE213634 OCE213635 OCE213637 OCE213639 OCE213645 OCE213646 OCE213649 OCE213651 OCE213654 OCE213656 OCE213662 OCE213663 OCE213664 OCE213665 OCE213683 OCE213716 OCE213720 OCE213721 OCE213727 OCE213730 OCE213731 OCE213741