Free Order - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

-~t --1-;-] |
‘ . · Case 3:03-cv-00930-CFD Document 47-4 Filed O1/26/2004 Page 1 of1 N
The following examples illustrate the foregoing I
defects. ` ,
Q: Did any‘ one product have a
greater tendency to self-heat than l
any of the others of the two?
MR. BONESTEEL: I object to the 2
form of the question as potentially
calling for attorney—c1ient and
work product privileged
information. i
Q: Can you answer it? i
· ` MR. TENER: Are you directing him
not to answer?
MR. BONESTEEL: I’m directing him
not to answer as phrased.
(Forestiere 334-335)
Q: Why would that be important to
anyone at Minwax?
\
MR. BONESTEEL: I will object 3
because this may well invade the Q
attorney-client and work product.
(Forestiere 411)
Q: Have you ever discussed that,
those changes, with anyone within
Minwax?
MR. BONESTEEL: I'm going to object
to the question. It is potentially `
invading the attorney—client and
work product privileges. You mean —
MR. TENER: Other than counsel. E
MR. BONESTEEL: 0r· at counsel’s I
direction.
\
(Forestiere 419-420, emphasis added). Also see, e. .
pages 421, 431-432, 470, 606, 607, 627-628, 666, 709,
720, 721, 723—724. Once again, the magistrate finds
14 p
-————————a-—-—---—---——-—————————————·························—·——"·mtttttrtw