Maximino Nolazco, et al. v. Cannon USA, Inc., et al.

N.D. Mississippi

Maximino Nolazco, et al. v. Cannon USA, Inc., et al.

DecidedDecember 29, 2025

Docket1:24-cv-00012

StatusUnknown

This text of Maximino Nolazco, et al. v. Cannon USA, Inc., et al. (Maximino Nolazco, et al. v. Cannon USA, Inc., et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Mississippi primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Maximino Nolazco, et al. v. Cannon USA, Inc., et al., (N.D. Miss. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI ABERDEEN DIVISION

MAXIMINO NOLAZCO, et al. PLAINTIFFS

v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:24-CV-12-GHD-DAS

CANNON USA, INC., et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER Before the court is a discovery dispute brought to the court by the parties and discussed at a telephonic conference on December 9, 2025 [Dkt. 123]. In short, documents bearing Bates stamp CANNON USA 000090-000098 were produced and entered as exhibits at a deposition. Documents bearing Bates stamp CANNON USA 000099-000100 were withheld as privileged. Plaintiff seeks production of the withheld documents, inter alia, S.E.C. v. Brady, 238 F.R.D. 429, 441 (N.D. Tex. 2006) (“The ‘disclosure of any significant portion of a confidential communication waives the privilege as to the whole.’”) (quoting Nguyen v. Excel Corp., 197 F.3d 200, 208 (5th Cir. 1999)). However, having conducted an in-camera review of the two pages at issue, the court finds them to be a separate document from 000090-000098. While the Bates numbering may be consecutive, it is clear that the two pages at issue concern subject matter entirely separate from 000090-000098. The produced pages were nothing more than photographs of the equipment at issue and an explanation of safety measures to be taken. The withheld pages were something else entirely, clearly not intended to be produced to the other side. The purpose of the rule mandating waiver and production of an entire document is to keep one side from using only those portions that favor its position but withholding anything that does not. Such a purpose does not apply when the documents are so clearly separate and address different subject matters. See id. (“[W]aiver of an attorney-client communication waives the privilege as to all other communications relating to the same subject matter.”) (emphasis added). Thus, the privilege attached to 000099-000100 was not waived by producing 000090- 000098.

SO ORDERED, this the 29th day of December, 2025.

/s/ David A. Sanders UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI ABERDEEN DIVISION

MAXIMINO NOLAZCO, et al. PLAINTIFFS

v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:24-CV-12-GHD-DAS

CANNON USA, INC., et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER Before the court is a discovery dispute brought to the court by the parties and discussed at a telephonic conference on December 9, 2025 [Dkt. 123]. In short, documents bearing Bates stamp CANNON USA 000090-000098 were produced and entered as exhibits at a deposition. Documents bearing Bates stamp CANNON USA 000099-000100 were withheld as privileged. Plaintiff seeks production of the withheld documents, inter alia, S.E.C. v. Brady, 238 F.R.D. 429, 441 (N.D. Tex. 2006) (“The ‘disclosure of any significant portion of a confidential communication waives the privilege as to the whole.’”) (quoting Nguyen v. Excel Corp., 197 F.3d 200, 208 (5th Cir. 1999)). However, having conducted an in-camera review of the two pages at issue, the court finds them to be a separate document from 000090-000098. While the Bates numbering may be consecutive, it is clear that the two pages at issue concern subject matter entirely separate from 000090-000098. The produced pages were nothing more than photographs of the equipment at issue and an explanation of safety measures to be taken. The withheld pages were something else entirely, clearly not intended to be produced to the other side. The purpose of the rule mandating waiver and production of an entire document is to keep one side from using only those portions that favor its position but withholding anything that does not. Such a purpose does not apply when the documents are so clearly separate and address different subject matters. See id. (“[W]aiver of an attorney-client communication waives the privilege as to all other communications relating to the same subject matter.”) (emphasis added). Thus, the privilege attached to 000099-000100 was not waived by producing 000090- 000098.

SO ORDERED, this the 29th day of December, 2025.

/s/ David A. Sanders UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Maximino Nolazco, et al. v. Cannon USA, Inc., et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maximino-nolazco-et-al-v-cannon-usa-inc-et-al-msnd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack