Rice v. Honeywell International Inc et al, No. 6:05-cv-00330 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 15, 2007)

From the Opinion

The passage below is extracted verbatim from the opening of the document. It has not been editorially summarized — consult the full opinion for the court's complete reasoning.

Previously, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Amended Motion to Compel (Docket No. 152). The Court now enters this Memorandum Opinion and Order explaining the Court’s ruling. BACKGROUND AND THE PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS This case involves U.S. patent 4,896,499 (“the ‘499 patent). Plaintiff Ivan Rice’s (“Rice”) motion centers a round De fendant Rolls-Roy ce, PL C’s (“Rolls-Roy ce”) produc tion of five documents. Initially, Rolls-Royce claimed that these documents were protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege.