WARNER BROS. RECORDS INC., et al Plaintiffs, v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Defendant Civil Action No 19-cv-00874-RBJ-MEH United States District Court, D. Colorado Filed April 07, 2021 Hegarty, Michael E., United States Magistrate Judge ORDER AMENDING THE COURT'S ORDER PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 502(d) THIS COURT, having reviewed and considered Defendant's Motion To Amend The Court's Order Pursuant To Federal Rule Of Evidence 502(d), hereby GRANTS the Motion, AMENDS its existing Order (Dkt. 321), and now ORDERS as follows: Therefore, the Motion for Entry of an Order [filed November 4, 2020; ECF 283] is granted to the extent that Defendant shall produce documents it has previously withheld as privileged, as requested in the Motion. Such production by itself shall not waive attorney/client or attorney work product privilege that otherwise applies to the produced documents, in this case or any other federal or state proceeding. Similarly, any testimony regarding documents produced pursuant to this Order, or testimony by Charter as it relates to "Plaintiffs' Notice of 30(b)(6) Deposition on Spoliation Topics to Defendant Charter Communications, Inc.," subject to Charter's Objections & Responses (collectively "Notice"), shall not by itself constitute a waiver of the attorney/client privilege or attorney work product protection in this case or any other federal or state proceeding. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Charter shall retain the right to object at deposition to testimony on the basis of attorney/client privilege and work product protection, and Plaintiffs shall retain the right to challenge at deposition or thereafter the assertion of any claim of attorney/client or work product protection regarding testimony relating to the Notice. The Court advises Defendant to cast a wide net, and be as aggressive as possible, in producing such documents from its privilege log. This Order is not intended as a determination that any documents Defendant produces are in fact privileged. Plaintiffs retain all arguments that Defendant has inappropriately designated a document as privileged. SO ORDERED this 7th day of April, 2021