Wednesday, August 25th, 2010...3:49 am
DAlaska: Discovery Issues
“Confer in person”: U S District Judge Ralph Beistline has held that the moving party’s Local Rule 37.1(a) duty to “confer in person” before filing a motion to compel means that counsel in the same city must meet face-to-face, not simply confer by telephone or by e-mail or letter. An alleged futility because of opposing counsel’s apparent intransigence does not, per Beistline, satisfy the “exigent circumstances” exception to the “confer in person” obligation. Lynch v. North Slope Borough, Case No. 4:09-cv-0002 (D.Alaska Order of July 29, 2010)
ERISA fiduciary duty exception to atty-client privilege: U S District Judge John Sedwick has held that attorney-client correspondence about proposed ERISA plan amendments doesn’t generally fall into the fiduciary duty exception to the attorney-client privilege. Reinking v. Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co., Case No. 3:07-cv-00212 (D.Alaska Order of Aug. 9, 2010)
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.