STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY, a Texas corporation, Plaintiff,
v.
CREDIT SUISSE, Cayman Islands Branch, Defendant.
United States District Court, D. Idaho.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
August 14, 2013.
August 14, 2013.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Stewart Title Guaranty Company, Plaintiff, represented by David W Cantrill, CANTRILL SKINNER LEWIS CASEY & SORENSEN, Dirk W de Roos, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Katherine W Wittenberg, Faegre Baker Daniels, LLP, David W. Cantrill, Cantrill Skinner Sullivan & King, LLP, Diane Boeh Davies, FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP, Robert D. Lewis, Cantrell Skinner Sullivan & King, LLP & Clinton O Casey, CANTRILL SKINNER LEWIS CASEY & SORENSEN.
Credit Suisse, Defendant, represented by Randall A Peterman, Moffatt Thomas Barrett Rock & Fields, Bruce A Maak, PARR BROWN GEE & LOVELESS, P.C., Bryan Scott Johansen, Parr Brown Gee & Loveless, James L Martin, MOFFATT THOMAS BARRETT ROCK & FIELDS, Rita M Cornish, PARR BROWN GEE & LOVELESS, P.C. & Stephen E.W. Hale, PARR BROWN GEE & LOVELESS, P.C..
Credit Suisse, Counter Claimant, represented by Randall A Peterman, Moffatt Thomas Barrett Rock & Fields, Bruce A Maak, PARR BROWN GEE & LOVELESS, P.C., Bryan Scott Johansen, Parr Brown Gee & Loveless, James L Martin, MOFFATT THOMAS BARRETT ROCK & FIELDS, Rita M Cornish, PARR BROWN GEE & LOVELESS, P.C. & Stephen E.W. Hale, PARR BROWN GEE & LOVELESS, P.C..
Stewart Title Guaranty Company, Counter Defendant, represented by David W Cantrill, CANTRILL SKINNER LEWIS CASEY & SORENSEN, Dirk W de Roos, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Katherine W Wittenberg, Faegre Baker Daniels, LLP, David W. Cantrill, Cantrill Skinner Sullivan & King, LLP, Diane Boeh Davies, FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP, Robert D. Lewis, Cantrell Skinner Sullivan & King, LLP & Clinton O Casey, CANTRILL SKINNER LEWIS CASEY & SORENSEN.
United States District Court, D. Idaho.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER INTRODUCTION
B. LYNN WINMILL, Chief District Judge.
The plaintiff Stewart Title has submitted 141 documents to the Court for an in camera inspection to determine if the documents are protected by the attorney/client privilege. Both parties have submitted briefing on the issue. For the reasons explained below, the Court finds that portions of the documents are protected by the privilege while other portions must be produced...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting Sign on now to see your case. Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
Updated daily.
Uncompromising quality.
Complete, Accurate, Current.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full
text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the
full text of the citing case.
