92, and after considering the parties’ filings, the arguments at the hearing, and the applicable law, the Court announced its rulings on the motions, along with the reasons for those rulings, on the record. [...] Regarding Plaintiff’s argument that Defendants improperly withheld documents pursuant to the attorney-client privilege, the undersigned conducted an in camera review of the withheld documents, and after considering the 1 In the previous order on these motions, the Court neglected to include a ruling regarding Defendants’ privilege log, which is the subject of Dkt. [...] As to Defendants’ complaints about Plaintiff’s privilege log, the Court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS Plaintiff to 2 Note that the Court intends for the deadlines imposed in the previous order to be the same, so, for example, where a party is instructed to supplement production “within 14 days of this order,” those 14 days still run from the date of the previous order. [...] As for Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiff to respond to RFPs 6, 7, 13, and 29, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART this portion of the order and ORDERS Plaintiff to respond, within 14 days of this order, with any responsive documents related to his public speech regarding the University of Texas or other communications related to his claims in this case. [...] The Court simply offers this clarification to ensure that the parties understand that the ruling on this motion for protection does not foreclose a consideration of the merits of Plaintiff’s arguments on this topic should the requested leave to amend the complaint be granted.
- Pages
- 5
- Published in
- United States of America
