Banks v. Office of the Senate Sergeant-At-Arms and Doorkeeper of the United States Senate

District of Columbia, dcd-1:2003-cv-00056

ORDER re: in camera review of documents, denying {{193}} Plaintiff's Rule 37 Motion to Compel Production of Documents, denying {{199}} Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to Expedite Decision for Production of Non-Privileged Documents and to Set Schedule for Summary Judgment Briefing and Memorandum in Support. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola on 5/22/06. Associated Cases: 1:03-cv-00056-HHK-JMF,1:03-cv-00686-HHK-JMF,1:03-cv-02080-HHK-JMF(lcjf1,)

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ROY BANKS, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 03-56 (HHK/JMF) v. Civil Action No. 03-686 (HHK/JMF) Civil Action No. 03-2080(HHK/JMF) OFFICE OF THE SENATE SERGEANT- AT-ARMS and DOORKEEPER, Defendant. ORDER In accordance with the accompanying memorandum opinion, it is, hereby, ORDERED that 1. Defendant's claims of attorney-client privilege and work product protection for the documents submitted in camera, pursuant to this Court's November 1, 2005 order, are sustained in part and denied in part. Defendant shall produce to plaintiff, within ten days of the date of this order, all documents for which neither a claim of attorney-client privilege nor a claim for work product protection is sustained; and it is further ORDERED that 2. Defendant shall submit in camera, within ten days of this opinion, a statement as to why it contends that document number RB002326-RB002345 is protected by the attorney-client privilege; and it is further ORDERED that 3. Plaintiff's Rule 37 Motion to Compel Production of Documents [#193] is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that 4. Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to Expedite Decision for Production of Non- Privileged Documents and to Set Schedule for Summary Judgment Briefing and Memorandum in Support [#199] is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that 5. The parties shall meet and confer regarding the completion of discovery and the filing of dispositive motions and file with the Court, no later than fourteen days from the date of this order, a joint proposed scheduling order. SO ORDERED. _____________________________ Dated: JOHN M. FACCIOLA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2