jellynuts
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2006
- Posts
- 247
The next step comes Monday when the warring parties are scheduled to meet with Levie in an effort to resolve the impasse. On Tuesday, there?s a status conference with U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who is hearing the case.
Sometime after that, sooner rather than later, Levie is expected to rule.
In Friday?s filing, the airlines (the defendants) explain why the DOJ (the plaintiffs) are wrong and should be required to provide the names who may have influenced the DOJ?s decision to file a lawsuit:
?Plaintiffs acknowledge that Interrogatory 1 seeks only facts and names?yet insist it seeks attorney mental impressions. It does not. It seeks only relevant ?factual information? provided by third-party interviewees, and the identities of those interviewees.
?The government cannot hide these facts behind the work-product doctrine simply because they are recorded in legal memoranda ? the memoranda may be protected, but the facts are not.?
Sometime after that, sooner rather than later, Levie is expected to rule.
In Friday?s filing, the airlines (the defendants) explain why the DOJ (the plaintiffs) are wrong and should be required to provide the names who may have influenced the DOJ?s decision to file a lawsuit:
?Plaintiffs acknowledge that Interrogatory 1 seeks only facts and names?yet insist it seeks attorney mental impressions. It does not. It seeks only relevant ?factual information? provided by third-party interviewees, and the identities of those interviewees.
?The government cannot hide these facts behind the work-product doctrine simply because they are recorded in legal memoranda ? the memoranda may be protected, but the facts are not.?