Opinion
Civil Action No. 08-cv-01513-CMA-BNB.
February 23, 2009
ORDER
This matter arises on the following:
(1) Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Privilege Log That Meets Requirements of Federal Law [Doc. # 51, filed 2/9/2009] (the "Motion for Privilege Log"); and
(2) Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery Regarding Qualified Immunity Defense [Doc. # 52, filed 2/9/2009] (the "Motion to Compel Discovery").
I held a hearing on the motions this afternoon and made rulings on the record. In summary and for the reasons stated on the record:
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Privilege Log [Doc. # 51] is DENIED because the Defendants' Revised Privilege Log [Doc. # 57-2] fully meets the requirements of such a log.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Compel Discovery [Doc. # 52] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as follows:
GRANTED to require the defendants to respond fully and completely to Interrogatory No. 37. Defendants Robert Coney shall make a supplemental discovery response, in writing and under oath, on or before March 2, 2009; and
DENIED in all other respects.