Narrative Opinion Summary
The judicial opinion addresses a series of discovery-related motions reviewed by the United States Magistrate Murrian and subsequently appealed to a higher court. The case involves multiple defendants contesting the denial of motions to compel discovery and document production, primarily on the grounds of attorney-client privilege. The court examined five memoranda and orders, affirming the magistrate's decisions in each instance. Specifically, the court found no error in denying defendants' motions as premature and upholding the attorney-client privilege after in camera inspections. The court also addressed motions concerning the taking of depositions and document production, affirming the magistrate's rulings due to a lack of new arguments on appeal. Furthermore, the FDIC was instructed to redesignate witnesses according to Rule 30(b)(6) for deposition purposes, with objections postponed to trial. The appeals were deemed either moot or unfounded, resulting in the affirmation of the magistrate’s orders. The court noted that any remaining issues concerning dispositive motions would be handled separately, ensuring the procedural integrity of the discovery process remained intact throughout the proceedings.
Legal Issues Addressed
Attorney-Client Privilege and Document Productionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The withholding of documents by Ernst & Whinney was upheld based on attorney-client privilege, with no new arguments presented on appeal.
Reasoning: The October 16, 1986 Memorandum and Order addressed motions to compel document production from Ernst & Whinney, which withheld 121 documents based on attorney-client privilege.
Attorney-Client Privilege in Discoverysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Court upheld the magistrate’s decision to protect certain documents under attorney-client privilege following an in camera inspection.
Reasoning: Denied motions to compel production of six-part memoranda deemed protected by attorney-client privilege after in camera inspection. The Court finds no error in this decision and affirms the order.
Discovery Motions and Prematuritysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Court affirmed the magistrate's decision to deny defendants’ motions to compel discovery as premature, with allowance for renewal.
Reasoning: The Court agrees with the magistrate's designation of the interrogatories as 'contention interrogatories' and finds no error, affirming the order.
Leave to Take Depositionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The magistrate's denial of a motion for leave to take depositions was affirmed, with the matter rendered moot following an agreed order.
Reasoning: The October 1, 1986 Memorandum and Order denied defendants' motion for leave to take depositions of specified individuals but did so without prejudice.
Rule 30(b)(6) Witness Designationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The FDIC was required to redesignate witnesses for specific deposition questions, with objections overruled as more suitable for trial.
Reasoning: The October 30, 1986 Memorandum and Order required the FDIC to designate witnesses per Rule 30(b)(6) to answer contention interrogatories.