Drummond Company, Inc. v. Collingsworth et al
Plaintiff: Drummond Company, Inc.
Defendant: Terrence P Collingsworth and Conrad & Scherer, LLP
Case Number: 2:2011cv03695
Filed: October 21, 2011
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
Office: Southern Office
County: Jefferson
Presiding Judge: William M Acker
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1391
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
March 25, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 707 MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER - This matter is before the court on the Special Master's Report and Recommendation Regarding Claims of Privilege Over Documents Subject to 10% Sampling Review 695 ; without objection, the Report and Recommenda tion of Special Master Regarding Claims of Privilege Over Documents Subject to 10% Sampling Review (Doc. # 695) is ADOPTED and APPROVED; Defendants SHALL produce (in full or with redactions) or withhold, as appropriate, the sampling Documents within thirty (30) days; The remaining unreviewed documents (approximately 2,800) SHALL be produced in a manner consistent with this Report & Recommendation, prior Reports and Recommendations, and the courts Orders (including the January 7, 2022 Memorandum Opinion and Order). Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 3/25/2022. (KAM)
January 7, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 693 MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER The Special Master has submitted five Reports and Recommendations regarding the application of the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client and work product privileges. (Docs. # 569, 572, 590, 622, 633). This matter i s before the court on Defendant Conrad & Scherers objections to those Reports and Recommendations. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order, the court addresses Conrad & Scherers (C&S) consolidated objections to the Special Masters Amended Reports and Re commendations regarding the Bucket 2 and Otero documents on Defendants Privilege Logs. (Doc. # 576); like Collingsworths objections [CITE], C&Ss general objection rests on an improperly narrow application of the relatedness prong, its general objection is OVERRULED; documents set out within this order. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 1/7/2022. (KAM)
March 18, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 668 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - The Special Master has submitted five Reports and Recommendations regarding the application of the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client and work product privileges. (Docs. # 569 , 572 , 590 , 622 , 633 ). This matter is before the court on Defendant Terry Collingsworth's objections to those Reports and Recommendations. (Doc. # 634 ). Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 3/18/2021. (KEK)
October 4, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 596 MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER The court held a telephone conference in this case on October 2, 2019 at the request of Drummond Company, Inc. Drummond seeks expedited review of 234 documents subject to now-pending objections to the Special Masters Rep orts and Recommendations (Docs. # 569-2, 572-2, 590-2). Of those 234 documents, the court has agreed to review the four documents which Plaintiffs have highlighted on an expedited basis. For the reasons set forth herein, the court finds that those fo ur documents are due to be produced pursuant to the crime-fraud exception. The parties are DIRECTED to create a protocol for production of these documents in connection with ongoing investigations in Colombia such that Defendants appellate rights are preserved. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 10/4/2019. (KAM)
January 22, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 439 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER-re: 409 Report and Recommendations of Special Master Regarding Various Third Party Subpoenas. The R&R is ADOOPTED and APPROVED as to the subpoena served on First United Bank. First United Bank SHALL produce responsiv e documents within twenty-one (21) days. The R&R as to issues related to the subpoena to Daniel Kovalik are OVERRULED. Pltfs are DIRECTED to meet and confer with Mr. Kovalik and/or his counsel in an effort to resolve the issues presented by the thi rd party subpoena. The R&R is ADOPTED and APPROVED IN PART and OVERRULED IN PART as to the issues related to the subpoena to International Rights Advocates. IRA SHALL produce responsive documents within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this Order. The R&R is ADOPTED and APPROVED as to issues related to the subpoena of William Wichmann. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 1/22/2016. (AVC)
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Alabama Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Drummond Company, Inc. v. Collingsworth et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Drummond Company, Inc.
Represented By: William Anthony Davis, III
Represented By: H Thomas Wells, III
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Terrence P Collingsworth
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Conrad & Scherer, LLP
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?