From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mold-Masters Limited v. Husky Injection Molding Sys. Ltd.

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
Jan 9, 2002
No. 01 C 1576 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 9, 2002)

Opinion

No. 01 C 1576.

January 9, 2002

DANIEL A. BOEHNEN, Esq., CHRISTOPHER M. CAVAN, Esq., JOSHUA R. RICH, Esq., PAUL S. TULLY, Esq., McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert Berghoff, Chicago, IL, Attorneys for Plaintiff.

CONSTANTINE L. TRELA, JR., Esq., LISA A. SCHNEIDER, Esq., Sidley Austin Brown Wood, Chicago, IL., BRUCE C. HAAS, Esq., MARC J. PENSABENE, Esq., Fitzpatrick Cella Harper Scinto, New York, NY, Attorneys for Defendant.


MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER


On December 6, 2001, this Court ruled on the applicability of the attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine to numerous documents submitted by Husky Injection Molding Systems Ltd. for in camera review. We held that Husky failed to establish the applicability of the privilege and doctrine to many of the documents. We also held that certain documents sought by Mold-Masters Limited must be disclosed because Husky failed to submit the documents for in camera review. For the reasons stated in open court on January 8, 2002, we have agreed to review in camera ten of the documents that were not previously submitted for in camera review to assess whether the documents are privileged or protected. We now turn to that task and hereby incorporate into this decision the discussion of relevant principles and case law that is contained in Mold-Masters Limited v. Husky Injection Molding Systems Ltd., No. 01 C 1576, 2001 WL 1558303 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 6, 2001).

P118

Husky described document P118 as a letter with attachment dated April 18, 1997, authored by Robert Bachman, Husky's lawyer, and sent to George Olaru, a Husky employee. The content of the letter reveals communications that were made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. Therefore, the letter need not be disclosed. The attached figures must be disclosed because Husky failed to provide any information about the figures on its privilege log.

P123

Husky described document P123 as undated drawings with handwritten notes authored by Rajan Puri, a Husky employee, and sent to Olaru. This Court cannot tell from the drawings and notes or from Husky's description of the drawings and notes whether the drawings and notes contain information protected under the attorney-client privilege or work-product doctrine. Therefore, document P123 must be disclosed.

P124

Husky described document P124 as a letter dated February 19, 1999, authored by Olaru and sent to Barry Kelmachter, Husky's lawyer. The letter is actually dated February 19, 1997. Attached to the letter are five documents that are not described at all on Husky's privilege log. For that reason, the attached documents must be disclosed. The letter itself contains confidential communications that were made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. Therefore, the letter need not be disclosed.

P126

Husky described document P126 as a letter dated June 30, 1995, authored by Bachman and sent to Olaru, J. Dalgleish, and Ed Jenko, all Husky employees. The content of the letter reveals communications that were made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. Therefore, the letter need not be disclosed.

P128

Husky described document P128 as a letter with attachment dated April 18, 1997, authored by Kelmachter and sent to Olaru. The content of the letter reveals communications that were made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. Therefore, the letter need not be disclosed. The attached figure must be disclosed because Husky failed to provide any information about the figure on its privilege log.

P153

Husky described document P153 as a letter dated June 30, 1995, authored by Bachman and sent to Jenko. Attached to the letter is a figure that is not described at all on Husky's privilege log. For that reason, the attached figure must be disclosed. The content of the letter itself reveals communications that were made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. Therefore, the letter need not be disclosed.

P165

Husky described document P165 as a letter dated June 30, 1998, authored by Bachman and sent to Jenko. The letter is actually dated June 30, 1995. The content of the letter reveals communications that were made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. Therefore, the letter need not be disclosed.

P166

Husky described document P166 as a letter dated February 19, 1997, authored by Olaru and sent to Kelmachter. Attached to the letter are three documents that are not described at all on Husky's privilege log. For that reason, the attached documents must be disclosed. The letter itself contains confidential communications that were made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. Therefore, the letter need not be disclosed.

P167

Husky described document P167 as a letter dated February 20, 1997, authored by Kelmachter and sent to Olaru. Attached to the letter are two documents that are not described at all on Husky's privilege log. For that reason, the attached documents must be disclosed. The letter itself contains confidential communications that were made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. Therefore, the letter need not be disclosed.

P169

Husky described document P169 as a letter dated April 18, 1997, authored by Kelmachter and sent to Olaru. Attached to the letter are three figures and a facsimile dated May 14, 1997, that are not described at all on Husky's privilege log. For that reason, the attached documents must be disclosed. The letter itself contains confidential communications that were made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. Therefore, the letter need not be disclosed.

* * *

To conclude, this Court orders Husky to produce documents to Mold-Masters as stated above.


Summaries of

Mold-Masters Limited v. Husky Injection Molding Sys. Ltd.

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
Jan 9, 2002
No. 01 C 1576 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 9, 2002)
Case details for

Mold-Masters Limited v. Husky Injection Molding Sys. Ltd.

Case Details

Full title:MOLD-MASTERS LIMITED, Plaintiff, v. HUSKY INJECTION MOLDING SYSTEMS LTD.…

Court:United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division

Date published: Jan 9, 2002

Citations

No. 01 C 1576 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 9, 2002)