Free Order - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Michael Ackerman and Robert Falk appeared via telephone on behalf of plaintiff Ronald Craig Fish ("Plaintiff"). Brian Holohan and Darrell Dudzik appeared via telephone on behalf of defendant Watkins ("Defendant").
Case 2:03-cv-00067-SMM Document 111 Filed 12/22/2005 Page 1 of 2
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ronald Craig Fish, Plaintiff , vs.

Thomas G. Watkins, III, et al., Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. CIV 03-0067-PHX-SMM ORDER

On December 20, 2005, the Court held a telephonic discovery dispute regarding the viability of a subpoena duces tecum for documents alone directed at Robert Falk by defendant Thomas G. Watkins, III (the "Subpoena Duces Tecum").1 Counsel for Plaintiff argued that documents requested by the Subpoena Duces Tecum were protected by both the attorney work product doctrine and the attorney-client privilege. Counsel for Defendant argued that any applicable privilege had been waived. Given the sensitive nature of information traditionally protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine, the production of documents pursuant to the Subpoena Duces Tecum shall be delayed pending further briefing and a ruling by the Court. Accordingly,

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the production of documents by Mr. Falk in response to the Subpoena Duces Tecum shall be delayed, pending the Court's ruling on relevant attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine issues. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, no later than January 6, 2006, Plaintiff and Defendant shall file briefs limited to issues squarely presented by the Subpoena Duces Tecum propounded by Defendant to Mr. Falk. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, no later than January 20, 2006, Plaintiff and Defendant may file briefs no longer than five (5) pages in length for the sole purpose of responding to information contained in the opposing party's January 6, 2006, brief. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Watkins' expert witness disclosure deadline, currently set for January 6, 2006, is hereby VACATED and will be rescheduled to a date certain when appropriate. DATED this 21st day of December, 2005.

Case 2:03-cv-00067-SMM

Document 111

-2-

Filed 12/22/2005

Page 2 of 2