Exhibit from U.S. v. Maxwell: categorical privilege log entry withholding about 57 documents of correspondence with attorneys regarding a criminal investigation.Machine-written summary
Plaintiff has objected that Defendant’s requests are overly broad and unduly burdensome, as individually logging all privileged responsive documents would be overly burdensome. Plaintiff contends that requests targeting such privileged information are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, are not important to resolving the issues, are not relevant to any party’s claim or defense, are not proportional to the needs of the case, and creates a heavy burden on Plaintiff that outweighs its benefit. Therefore, Plaintiff has employed categorical logging pursuant to Local Civil Rule 26.2(c).
Action
Page Count Type
Email and letter communications re law enforcement
David Boles, Stan Pottinger, Sigrid McCawtey. Paul Cassell,
S Stan Pottinger, Sigrid
David Boles, McCawley, Paul Cassell, Brad
This categorical entry is regarding correspondence re the currently ongoing criminal investigation of Defendant and
Exhibit from U.S. v. Maxwell: categorical privilege log entry withholding about 57 documents of correspondence with attorneys regarding a criminal investigation.
Court Records: United States v. Maxwell (S.D.N.Y. 1:20-cr-00330)