Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

DEC. 2&;2§&51;d40&Prllo125e©tlsliA9z O' Bmbiiuaiéaiaceaz Filed O4/06/2006NO. 5=9ag`é"iP¤i 2/3
Lo ' C. B htle
msdttomcfjt Law
O Direct Din; 21s.ss4.s0so
N-¢ lbechrle@cog;r.¢:nm
df ROHN, PC
_ December 29, 20 5
VIA FACSIMH.E
David W. Hansen, Esquire Jac B. Blumenfeld, Esquire
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP M0 `s, Nichols, Arsht & Turmell
525 University Avenue 120 North Market Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301 P.O. Box 1347
Wil ` gton, DE 19899
RE: McKesson Information lutions LLC
v. The TriZett0 Group, c.
C.A. No. 04—l258 SLR . Del.
Dear Counsel: n
I am promptly addressing defendant’s letter f December 28, 2005 without
waiting for a response from counsel for McKesson i order to save some time. I say that
because I will be leaving the country on January 7, 06 for ten (10) days and I want
counsel to take certain steps so upon my rettun we convene and resolve outstanding
issues including those set forth in the letter of Dece ber 28, 2005, if not before.
With those thoughts in mind, the following s eps should be taken:
1. The documents that I required to produced in Special Master Order
No. 4 should be produced by plai tiff to defendant immediately upon
receipt of this letter.
2. Counsel for the plaintiff should ine the documents on plaintiffs
privilege log in accordance with e standards set forth in all of the
previous Orders I have entered in `s matter, and specifically those in
Special Master Order No. 4. The xtent to which the documents
should be produced, they should produced immediately upon their
examination by the plaintiff, if in ccordance with those standards they
cannot remain as privileged doc ents. To the extent, following such
1515 Marker Street · 16th Floor ‘ Philadelphia. PA 19102-1916 · T 215.864.96OO ‘ F: 2l5.B64.962l'l · www.cogr.c¤m

DEG. 2@a2sé51:d496llll012580$lll0t O' Hserzll/rlw1é¤864?9@$92 Filed 04/oe/2006 NO. E°95llG€”2P0f 2/3
CONRA O’BRIJ3N GELLMAN & ROHN, PC
David W. Hansen, Esquire
Jack B. Blumenfeld, Esquire
December 29, 2005
Page 2 '
review, that plaintiff continues to elieve that any documents are
privileged, it should make a separ te list of them and we shall convene
a hearing in Wilmington at the ·. ouse where the documents will
be presented to me and I will revi and rule upon them one by one
following my rettun, if not before
3. The eleven (1 l) documents on pa e 3 and the twenty—tive (25)
documents on page 4 to 8 inclusi · should be provided to me by the
plaintiff immediately upon receip of this letter and I will use my best
efforts to rule on them in—camera efore I leave the country.
I want to make it plain by this letter that I ex ct counsel to apply the standards
that I have included in my previous Orders in review ng the documents on Exhibit "A”
and Exhibit “B" before sending them to me for in-c era review. Many of those earlier
ruled upon documents seemed fundamentally inapp priate for a claim of privilege under
the most basic standards that apply for claiming pri lege, I do not expect to see the same
grounds that have been rejected heretofore to again •·· asserted for claiming privilege on
these and the documents covered by this letter or oth · rwise.
Sincere
is c rz » as
f
LCB/rig /
cc: Michael A. Barlow, Esquire (via facsimile)