el
lh
EX
In

Husky described document P165 as a letter dated June 30, 1998, authored by Bachman
and sent to Jenko. The letter is actually dated June 30, 1995. The content of the letter reveals
communications that were made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. Therefore, the letter

need not be disclosed.

16

EN

Husky described document P166 as a letter dated February 19, 1997, authored by Olaru
and sent to Kelmachter. Attached to the letter are three documents that are not described at all on
Husky's privilege log. For that reason, the attached documents must be disclosed. The letter
itself contains confidential communications that were made for the purpose of obtaining legal

advice. Therefore, the letter need not be disclosed.

I~
bas
In
I

|

Husky described document P167 as a letter dated February 20, 1997, authored by
Kelmachter and sent to Olaru. Attached to the letter are two documents that are not described at
all on Husky's privilege log. For that reason, the attached documents must be disclosed. The
letter itself contains confidential communications that were made for the purpose of obtaining

legal advice. Therefore, the letter need not be disclosed.


~~
—
bo
In

|

Husky described document P126 as a letter dated June 30, 1995, authored by Bachman
and sent to Olaru, J. Dalgleish, and Ed Jenko, all Husky employees. The content of the letter
reveals communications that were made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. Therefore, the

letter need not be disclosed.

P128

Husky described document P128 as a letter with attachment dated April 18, 1997,
authored by Kelmachter and sent to Olaru. The content of the letter reveals communications that
were made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. Therefore, the letter need not be disclosed.
The attached figure must be disclosed because Husky failed to provide any information about the
figure on its privilege log.

PAS.

joo

Husky described document P153 as a letter dated June 30, 1995, authored by Bachman
and sent to Jenko. Attached to the letter is a figure that is not described at all on Husky's
privilege log. For that reason, the attached figure must be disclosed. The content of the letter
itself reveals communications that were made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice.

Therefore, the letter need not be disclosed.


P169

Husky described document P169 as a letter dated April 18, 1997, authored by Kelmachter
and sent to Olaru. Attached to the letter are three figures and a facsimile dated May 14, 1997,
that are not described at all on Husky's privilege log. For that reason, the attached documents
must be disclosed. The letter itself contains confidential communications that were made for the
purpose of obtaining legal advice. Therefore, the letter need not be disclosed.

ek Ok

To conclude, this Court orders Husky to produce documents to Mold-Masters as stated

above.
ENTER ORDER:
a ° ~ a)
shal «
MARTIN C. ASHMAN
Dated: January 9, 2002. United States Magistrate Judge


Minute Order Forms (06/97)

_ United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge Sitting Judge if Other arti
or Magistrate Judge Suzanne B. Conlon thane Aenheved sade Martin C. Ashman
CASE NUMBER 01 C 1576 DATE 1/9/2002
CASE Mold-Masters Limited vs. Husky Injection Molding Systems, Lt
TITLE

{In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, ¢.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature

of the motion being presented.]

MOTION:

DOCKET ENTRY:

qd) oO Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]

Q) oO Brief in support of motiondue

@) oO Answer brief to motion due___. Reply to answer brief due___

(4) o Ruling/Hearingon___—setfor__— saat

(5) Oo Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for}on__—s set for at

(6) Oo Pretrial conference{held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__—s—ssetfor at.

(O) oO Trial[set for/re-set for] on at

(8) oO [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continuedto_____at

(9) o This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]

COFRCP4(m) (General Rule21 CFRCP41(a)(1) COFRCP41(a)(2).

ao) {Other docket entry] | Enter memorandum opinion and order regarding in camera review of ten
documents.

(i) {For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court.
4

No notices required. umber of notices,

V | Notices mailed by judge’s staff. P
Notified counsel by telephone. date 20 2002
Docketing to mail notices.
Mail AO 450 form Ox Avital J | a)
v | Copy to judge/magistatejudger
972002
courtroom gate mailed notice
1S deputy’s 1s
initials
rating deputy iiols



Copies have been mailed to:

DANIEL A. BOEHNEN, Esq.
CHRISTOPHER M. CAVAN, Esq.
JOSHUA R. RICH, Esq.

PAUL S. TULLY, Esq.

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff

300 South Wacker Drive
Suite 3200
Chicago, IL 60606

Attorneys for Plaintiff

CONSTANTINE L. TRELA, JR., Esq.
LISA A. SCHNEIDER, Esq.

Sidley Austin Brown & Wood

10 South Dearborn Street

Chicago, IL 60603

BRUCE C. HAAS, Esq.

MARC J. PENSABENE, Esq.
Fitzpatrick Cella Harper & Scinto
30 Rockefeller Plaza

New York, NY 10112-3801

Attorneys for Defendant


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION
MOLD-MASTERS LIMITED, )
Plaintiff, } Case No. 01 C 1576
v. } Judge Suzanne B. Conlon
HUSKY INJECTION MOLDING } Magistrate Judge
SYSTEMS LTD., ) Martin C. Ashman
Defendant. }

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

On December 6, 2001, this Court ruled on the applicability of the attorney-client privilege
and work-product doctrine to numerous documents submitted by Husky Injection Molding
Systems Ltd. for in camera review. We held that Husky failed to establish the applicability of the
privilege and doctrine to many of the documents. We also held that certain documents sought by
Mold-Masters Limited must be disclosed because Husky failed to submit the documents for in
camera review. For the reasons stated in open court on January 8, 2002, we have agreed to
review in camera ten of the documents that were not previously submitted for in camera review
to assess whether the documents are privileged or protected. We now turn to that task and hereby
incorporate into this decision the discussion of relevant principles and case law that is contained
in Mold-Masters Limited v. Husky Injection Molding Systems Ltd., No. 01 C 1576, 2001 WL

1558303 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 6, 2001).

Na


PLS

Husky described document P118 as a letter with attachment dated April 18, 1997,
authored by Robert Bachman, Husky's lawyer, and sent to George Olaru, a Husky employee. The
content of the letter reveals communications that were made for the purpose of obtaining legal

advice. Therefore, the letter need not be disclosed. The attached figures must be disclosed

because Husky failed to provide any information about the figures on its privilege log.

ms
|
IN
Dy

Husky described document P123 as undated drawings with handwritten notes authored by
Rajan Puri, a Husky employee, and sent to Olaru. This Court cannot tell from the drawings and
notes or from Husky's description of the drawings and notes whether the drawings and notes
contain information protected under the attorney-client privilege or work-product doctrine.

Therefore, document P123 must be disclosed.

le]
ao
be
=

Husky described document P124 as a letter dated February 19, 1999, authored by Olaru
and sent to Barry Kelmachter, Husky's lawyer. The letter is actually dated February 19, 1997.
Attached to the letter are five documents that are not described at all on Husky's privilege log.
For that reason, the attached documents must be disclosed. The letter itself contains confidential
communications that were made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. Therefore, the letter

need not be disclosed.