Opinion
CAUSE NO. 1:04-CV-00477.
January 25, 2007
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the motion (DE # 73) of the Defendants to compel the production of fifteen e-mails provided to the Plaintiffs' expert and listed on the privilege log attached to the Defendants' motion. The Plaintiffs, however, repeatedly request in their response that the Court conduct an in camera review of the documents because the subject matter of the e-mails (and presumably their content) "have nothing to do with" the expert's opinion. ( See Pls.' Resp. to Mot. to Compel Produc. of E-mails at 6-7.)
If the Plaintiffs' assertion is true, they contend that it therefore follows that the expert neither "considered" nor "relied" on the e-mails, taking this situation outside the scope of Karn v. Ingersoll-Rand Co., 168 F.R.D. 633 (N.D. Ind. 1996). The Plaintiffs' assertion, however, is clearly problematic, given the broad sweep of the term "considered" and that the Plaintiffs' reliance for the principal is grounded in the case of Simon Property Group, L.P. v. mySIMON, Inc., 194 F.R.D. 644, 649-50 (S.D. Ind. 2000), which was addressing inadvertent disclosures, not the type of disclosures we have here.
Nevertheless, so as to give full consideration to the record, the Court will conduct an in camera review of the documents before ruling. Accordingly, counsel for the Plaintiffs is directed to submit the documents under seal to the Court forthwith and to file a notice at the time the documents are tendered so opposing counsel is aware of their submission. The motion to compel (DE # 73) remains under advisement.
SO ORDERED.