Free Redacted Document - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-00360-JJF Document 143-6 Filed 05/1 1/2006 Page 1 of 2
` if l ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST SLMANBECK. RC.
1425 K Street, N.W Airarelklin iorhwell .;rnne`1MF;hS[;erba
Su·t€ . HI Olly lgg 15-B . l IPS
v$0~¤¤¤=¤¤. 00 20005 Ei22‘Z$'€°§i§'§§£.., I. E?‘§l.€.ial§i§Sf§
Geor e R. Re er Parrick 'Ii Slcacel
Telephone 202r'[83_604O Stevgn Lieberlhian Monic;C’1;l§itfts
Facsimile 202-783-603l §;jj;>*;Q1~,§”]ff; E;a£1€E‘K?m€5°°
·vww.rfem.com Richard Wydeven Sreven M. Giovannetli
ar in . Z ic unkweon R u
January 167 lxh/linhksi`li3haTi[ k g?’Elizabeth Bflenner
Sharon L. Davis Adam M. Treiber
Rober B. Murra Daniel L. Shores
Wa Federal Exgrggs gjegla Glalcagrib joseph E. Green
E {CY . DEH
Glenn E. Karra Of Counsel
D000 W- H0¤0¤» ES0 ll?§L“§.‘irT32‘1l;·E’§4'?’ §§2E.’; §‘U§ri€*il§..... M
Senniger, Powers, Leavitt & Roedel wor Admmedm De
One Metropolitan Square, l6°h Floor
St. Louis, MO 63102
Re: Trilegiant Loyalty Solutions v. Maritz
Our Reference 2829-179
Dear David:
Enclosed please find Trilegiant’s Supplemental Schedule of Documents Withheld on the
Basis of Privilege and/or Immunity, and production documents bearing Bates Nos. TRL-MTZ
45332-46000, which have been designated "Highly Confidential" in accordance with the
Protective Order. We take issue with a number of the objections raised in your January 3, 2006,
letter, however.
First, with regard to how you have categorized your objections, in numerous instances the
group descriptions do not comport with the documents listed in the groups. Contrary to your
descriptions of Groups l, 2, and 3, Group l contains a large number of documents that were not
authored by or addressed to Messrs. McGonagle or Siegel (see, e.g., # 27), Group 2 contains a
number of documents that were authored by or addressed to an attorney (see, e. g., #32), and
Group 3 contains several documents created after Trilegiant’s acquisition of the patents-in-suit
(see., e. g., # 374).
Second, with regard to your objections to Trilegiant’s descriptions of the documents not
produced, Trilegiant has attempted to describe the nature of the information not produced in a
manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, enables Maritz to assess
the applicability of the privilege or protection claimed. The same cannot be said for Maritz’s
privile e lo which, as discussed in m J anua 6, 2006 letter, uses two stock descriptions for
g 8 Y YY
more than three—quarters of its entries. Nonetheless, we have reviewed each of the entries you
identified in your January 3rd letter and have amended some of those entries to provide further
information regarding the basis for Trilegiant’s privilege claim. If you believe a particular
description remains deficient, we will need more a specific reason regarding why you cannot
assess the applicability of the privilege or protection claimed.
Third, your statement that more f`actual detail regarding the communications written or
received by Peter McGonagle, Esq. and Todd Siegel, Esq. is needed because "they have
Ex. G

Case 1 :04-cv-00360-JJF Document 143-6 Filed 05/11/2006 Page 2 of 2
ROTHWELL. FIGG, ERNST Sr MANBECK RC.
David W. Harlan, Esq.
January 16, 2006
Page 2
corporate and business responsibilities in addition to legal duties" is incorrect. Peter McGonagle
served as in-house counsel before leaving Trilegiant, Todd Siegel currently serves as in-house
counsel, and each of the descriptions indicates that the document withheld relates to legal
matters.
Fourth, with regard to documents and communications neither authored by nor addressed
to an attomey, each of the descriptions indicates that such documents describe confidential
communications with an attomey on a legal matter, and further information regarding the nature
of the matter is provided. We note that many of the documents listed under your Category 2
were authored or received by Patty Gonzalez. As Marti Beller testified at her December 16, 2005
deposition, one of Ms. Gonzalez’s responsibilities at Trilegiant is as a liaison between counsel
and others at Trilegiant with respect to patent legal matters.
Fifth, there is no basis for your contention that any documents created before Trilegiant’s
acquisition of the patents—in·suit are not privileged. A privileged document does not gain or lose
its privileged status based on such an event.
Sixth, you are incorrect in asserting that the documents listed in Category 5 are not
privileged. Documents 127 and 213 do not involve 3rd parties. The other documents involve
confidential and privileged communications with consultants.
Seventh, with regard to bundled e-mail strings and other documents with attachments,
Maritz also has bundled e-mails and other documents with attachments on its privileged log
(without identifying all senders, recipients, and attachments, however), and cannot complain on
that basis.
Lastly, we inadvertently neglected to indicate with an asterisk (*) the documents
produced in redacted form; the log has been so amended and we apologize for this oversight.
Very truly yours,
R. Elizabeth Brenner
REB:erh
Enclosure
L:\2829\2829·l79.LI'I\LE'l"I`ERS\1~lARLAN.L5.DOC

Case 1:04-cv-00360-JJF

Document 143-6

Filed 05/11/2006

Page 1 of 2

Case 1:04-cv-00360-JJF

Document 143-6

Filed 05/11/2006

Page 2 of 2