Free Redacted Document - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-ev-00360-JJF Document 108-8 Filed 03/17/2006 Page 1 of 2
S E N N G E R
WUWERS ZI`ff.C"“ .. _ , ,
i i V V i *:3/smr tederrs. Mrssuunr Fm3lC12
;1ia·21\t-Sami?]
BIG-23l·4?l42
February 6, 2006
Via E—MuiI mul U.S. Mui!
Eliaabeth Brenner
Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, PC.
I425 K. Street, N.W., Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20005
Rc: Privilege L0g
Dear Elizabeth:
l am writing in response to your letter ofianuary 26, 2006.
First, l find it curious that you are asking Maritz to provide information on its log that
Trilegiant is unwilling to provide on its own log. l~`or example, in a recent letter, you refused to
supplement your log by identifying the individual e-mails comprising an e-mail string because
Maritz had not done that in its log. Of course as you now know, Maritz did break out the
constituent parts of e-mail strings when it supplemented its log. We expect Trilegiant to
supplement its log in this respect by February I3, 2006. The same applies to unidentified
attachments to letters and e-mails.
Second, you requested that Maritz provide a log of`its redacted documents. l refer you to
our supplemental log that identifies redacted documents.
You quarrel with the descriptions in our revised log because they do not identify
particular patents, particular applications, particular contracts or particular business opportunities.
lior example, you express consternation that "Over one-half of the documents listed on the
log...involve a communication between counsel and client 'conveying legal advice regarding
patent protection' or 'conveying legal advice regarding patent protection."' 1 did a sampling ofthe
privileged documents with these descriptions. The documents sampled related to what is
described, namely, Maritz seeking or receiving legal advice about its obtaining patent protection,
applying for a patent or similar activity. I cannot perceive a deficiency in such a description.
The larger question is your apparent assumption that no document is privileged if it
concerns, however tangentially, your client or its patents. We do not believe that to be a
supportable assumption given the circumstances of` this case. As we see it, Maritz' assertion of`
reliance on the advice of counsel as a dcf`ense to your willfulness claim does not mean that
Maritz has waived the attorney—client privilege across the full breadth and scope ol` all
confidential communications with its attorneys.
Ex. 7

Case 1:04-cv-00360-JJF Document 108-8 Filed 03/17/2006 Page 2 of 2
Elizabeth Brenner
February 6, 2006
Page Two
lf you are unwilling to supplement your privilege log as requested here and in my
previous correspondence, please advise me before the l3th, so that no further time is wasted.
Ye —»—r . r__`Yours very truly,
David W. Harlan
DV»/Hama;

Case 1:04-cv-00360-JJF

Document 108-8

Filed 03/17/2006

Page 1 of 2

Case 1:04-cv-00360-JJF

Document 108-8

Filed 03/17/2006

Page 2 of 2