Joshua Neil Rubin, Ediscovery Counsel

 

Home Services About Blog Contact

 

Docket in Westinghouse Securities Litigation

From the docket in ZUCKER, et al v. WESTINGHOUSE ELECT., et al, action 2:91-cv-00354-DBS (W.D.Pa.):
Date Filed # Docket Text
07/29/1997 262  MOTION by Pltfs to Compel the Westinghouse Defts (Gary M. Clark, Robert E. Faust, Warren H. Hollinshead, Paul E. Lego, William A. Powe, Robert F. Pugliese, Theodore Stern, Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Westinghouse Financial Services, Inc. and Westinghouse Credit Corporation) to Produce the "Second Writedown" Documents to Pltfs with Proposed Order. (ces) Modified on 07/30/1997 (Entered: 07/30/1997)
07/29/1997 263  BRIEF by pltfs in support of [262-1] motion to Compel (ces) (Entered: 07/30/1997)
07/29/1997 264  AFFIDAVIT by pltfs of Joshua N. Rubin Re: [262-1] motion to Compel (ces) (Entered: 07/30/1997)
08/20/1997 269  Hearing on Motion held re: [262-1] motion to Compel [ Reporter: Rick Ford] (Oral argument on pltf's motion to compel discovery. See order filed this date) (ces) (Entered: 08/20/1997)
08/20/1997 270  ORDER that Westinghouse defts shall have 5 days in which to evaluate their database management systems software and determine whether the indices requested by ptlfs can be provided in a redacted form which will not result in the disclusre of information protected by the work-product privilege. Deft shall disclose to ptlfs and the ct. which software program or programs were used to compel the databases. If such partial redaction is practicable, Westinghouse defts shall so notify pltfs and the ct. and provide the redacted indices requested by ptlfs w/all deliberate speed. if such redaction is not practicable and Westinghouse defts continue to assert work-product privilege, pltfs shall propound discovery requests in as particularized a manner as their knowledge of Westinghouse's documents permits. Should Westinghouse choose this court, ct. will be generally disinclined to grant any relief to defts on ground that ptlf's discovery requests are overly broad or unduly burdensome, so long as they are reasonably particularized and calculated to produce evidence relevant to the "second write-down documents" ( signed by Judge D. Smith on 8/19/97 ) CM all parties of record. (ces) Modified on 08/27/1997 (Entered: 08/20/1997)

 

 

 

Share this page using

 

This website is an attorney advertisement.

 

Terms of Use and Disclaimers

 

135 Ocean Parkway, Brooklyn, NY 11218

 

© Copyright Joshua N. Rubin - Creative Commons CC-BY 3.0 License. No claim to any governmental record.

 

 

Web Statistics