UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

But after reviewing in camera and “considering the log entries, the withheld documents, and the record in support of the privilege assertion (including the declaration of Amanda Cochran-McCall, Dkt. [...] Second, Defendants challenged the sufficiency of many of the 469 entries on Plaintiff’s first objective privilege log, containing documents withheld as both attorney-client privileged and as work product and authored in the months preceding the filing of the lawsuit. [...] Judge Howell ordered Defendants to create a list “identifying the specific communications from the present log for which [] additional information is needed” and ordered Lowery to “produce a supplemental privilege log specifically (1) describing the content sufficiently to assess the assertion of the privilege and (2) identifying the privilege asserted” with 14 days of receiving this list. [...] He simply noted that his decision rested on “the log entries, the withheld documents [reviewed in camera], and the record in support of the privilege assertion (including the declaration of Amanda 1 Transcript not available at time of filing. [...] That is, unless every text in the chain was primarily for the purpose of legal advice, Plaintiff ought to receive the non-legal portions of the chain, with the legal advice redacted.