Stipulatedorderregardingnon-Waiverofattorney-Clientprivilege

StipulatedOrderRegardingNon-WaiverofAttorney-ClientPrivilege

andWorkProductProtection

(Fed. R. Evid. 502(d) and (e))

Whereas,thepartieshavestipulated,andherebyrequesttheentryofanorderproviding,thattheattorney-clientprivilegeandworkproductprotectionshallnotbewaivedundercertaincircumstancesasspecifiedherein;

Accordingly,itisthis_day of,,bytheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheDistrictofWyoming,ORDERED:

1.Non-WaiverofAttorney-ClientPrivilegeandWorkProductProtection.PursuanttoFed.R.Evid.502(d)and(e),thedisclosureduringdiscoveryofanycommunicationorinformation(hereinafter“Document”)thatisprotectedbytheattorney-clientprivilege(“Privilege”or“Privileged,”asthecasemaybe)orwork-productprotection(“Protection”or“Protected,”asthecasemaybe),asdefinedbyFed.R.Evid.502(g),shallnotwaivethePrivilegeorProtectionintheabove-captionedcase,oranyotherfederalorstateproceeding,foreitherthatDocumentorthesubjectmatterofthatDocument,unlessthereisanintentionalwaiverofthePrivilegeorProtectiontosupportanaffirmative useoftheDocumentinsupportoftheparty’sclaimordefense,inwhicheventthescopeofanysuchwaivershallbedeterminedbyFed.R.Evid.502(a)(2)and(3).ThepartiesintendthatthisstipulatedordershalldisplacetheprovisionsofFed.R.Evid.502(b)(1)and(2).Thatis,alldisclosuresnotmadetosupportan affirmativeuseoftheDocumentinsupportofaparty’sclaimordefenseshallberegardedas“inadvertent,”andtheproducingpartyisherebydeemedtohavetaken“reasonablestepstopreventdisclosure,”regardlessof anyargumentor circumstancessuggestingotherwise.

2.ReturnofPrivilegedorProtectedMaterials.ExceptwhentherequestingpartyconteststhevalidityoftheunderlyingclaimofPrivilegeorProtection(includingachallengetothereasonableness ofthetimingorsubstanceofthemeasuresundertakenbytheproducingpartyto

retrievetheDocument(s)inquestion),anyDocument(s)theproducingpartyclaimsasPrivilegedorProtectedshall,uponwrittenrequest, promptlybereturnedtotheproducingpartyand/ordestroyed,attheproducingparty’soption.IftheunderlyingclaimofPrivilegeorProtectioniscontested,thepartiesshallcomplywith,andtherequestingpartymaypromptlyseekajudicialdeterminationofthematterpursuantto,Fed.R.Civ.P.26(b)(5)(B).InassessingthevalidityofanyclaimofPrivilegeorProtection,thecourtshallnotconsidertheprovisionsofFed.R.Evid.502(b)(1)and(2),butshallconsiderwhethertimelyandotherwisereasonablestepsweretakenbytheproducingpartytorequestthereturnordestructionoftheDocumentoncetheproducingpartyhadactualknowledgeof(i)thecircumstancesgivingrisetotheclaimofPrivilegeorProtectionand

(ii)theproductionoftheDocumentinquestion.

3.Forpurposesofparagraph2,“destroyed”shallmeanthatthepaperversionsareshredded,thatactiveelectronicversionsaredeleted,andthatnoeffortshallbemadetorecoverversionsthatarenotreadilyaccessible,suchasthoseonbackupmediaoronlyrecoverablethroughforensicmeans.

4.Forpurposesofparagraph2,“actualknowledge”referstotheactualknowledgeofanattorneyofrecordorotherattorneywithleadresponsibilitiesinthelitigation(forexample,leadcounsel,trialcounsel,oraseniorattorneywithmanagerialresponsibilitiesforthelitigation).[SIGNATURESOFCOUNSEL]

UNITEDSTATES[DISTRICT][MAGISTRATE]JUDGE