Favorable Ruling in the AtPac Case:Mike Jamison provides the attached ruling by Federal Magistrate John Moulds rejecting a request by the AtPac attorneys with the concluding statement,
“the record does not support plaintiff’s assertion that defendants have willfully and repeatedly violated the court’s discovery order.”
Yes, but here is the full paragraph from the order:
Plaintiff’s briefing fails to demonstrate circumstances warranting a forensic examination of defendants’ and their counsel’s computer systems to assure production of the documents which this court has ordered produced. Although it appears there has been some foot dragging on the part of defendants, the record does not support plaintiff’s assertion that defendants have willfully and repeatedly violated the court’s discovery order.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s request for forensic examination is denied.
2. The temporal scope of the waiver of privilege is limited to documents existing at the time of the November 18, 2010 order.
3. Billing records need not be produced as those documents are not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
As I recall the County has already been fined $20,000 Dollars for their "foot dragging." I guess the Judge decided that was enough retribution.