Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06482/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06482-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Account Receivable

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREG BRAUN, CASE NO. CV-F-02-6482 AWI LJO

Plaintiff, ORDER AFTER IN CAMERA INSPECTION

OF BILLING STATEMENTS

vs.

AGRI-SYSTEMS, 

Defendant.

 /

Pursuant to a notice filed on December 8, 2005, Defendant Agri-Systems sought to compel

production of documents from plaintiff Greg Braun regarding attorneys fees claimed by plaintiff as

damages. On February 2, 2006, this Court issued an order that the documents reflecting attorneys fees

were to be submitted to this Court for an in camera inspection.

On approximately February 17 and 23, 2006, plaintiff delivered to the Court the attorney fees

billing statements (“billing statements”) which were the subject of the motion. The Court received and

reviewed two sets of the billing statements. The billing statements are compiled from six different

sources: 

1) Kimble, MacMichael & Upton, 

2) Walter Law Group, 

3) Drummond & Associates, San Francisco counsel,

4) Crowley, Haughey, Hanson, Toole & Dietrich, Montana counsel,

5) Douglas Harris Law Offices, Montana counsel,

Case 1:02-cv-06482-AWI -LJO Document 255 Filed 02/28/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

6) O’Connell & Associates, document manager.

Set 1, a 12-inch stack of billing statements, consists of the billing statements from the six

sources. Plaintiff represented that these statements were redacted to exclude billing entries unrelated

to this litigation (i.e., redacted entries related to other Greg Braun litigations). Thus, all of the entries

for the instant litigation should be reflected in Set 1 of the billing statements. 

Set 2, a 6-inch stack of billing statements, is a subset of Set 1 which contains excerpted billing

statements. For the Court’s review, plaintiff highlighted billing entries/portions of entries that plaintiff

contends contains either attorney-client privilege or work product privilege. Generally, plaintiff

highlighted the "substance" of what was worked on or discussed. Thus, for example, the entry will show

that research was done, but the subject of the research is claimed to be privileged and was, therefore,

highlighted. Plaintiff proposes that he be permitted to redact the highlighted portion from the production

of the billing statements.

After review of both Set 1 and Set 2, the billing statements with the proposed redactions, as

highlighted for the Court’s review in Set 2, are fair and accurate and take into account legitimate

privileges of attorney client or work product. Accordingly, plaintiff is ordered to produce the attorney

billing statements in Set 1, redacted to reflect the highlighted portions in Set 2, within 20 days of the date

of service of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 28, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-06482-AWI -LJO Document 255 Filed 02/28/06 Page 2 of 2