Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 24, 2025

AT&T Enterprises, LLC v. Atos IT Solutions and Services, Inc.

Judge
Lewis Liman
Docket
1:23-cv-01395
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureEvidence
In one sentence

In AT&T Corp. v. Atos IT Solutions, Judge Liman ruled that Atos met its burden for all seven reviewed documents.

Who this affects

Atos IT Solutions and Services, Inc., whose privilege burden the court found satisfied for all seven reviewed documents; the order also concerns AT&T Corp. as the opposing party.

What happened

AT&T Corp. sued Atos IT Solutions and Services, Inc. in the Southern District of New York. The court reviewed seven documents that Atos filed privately and under seal, with Atos’s consent, to assess whether attorney-client privilege applied.

The court held that Atos had satisfied its burden regarding all seven documents. The order does not provide further details about the documents or the underlying dispute.

Judge Lewis J. Liman issued the order on January 24, 2025.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
AT&T Enterprises, LLC v. Atos IT Solutions and Services, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-01395
Judge
Lewis Liman
Date
Jan. 24, 2025

Background

The court reviewed documents listed in appendices to two earlier docket filings. Atos filed the documents privately and under seal, with its consent, for the court’s review. The review concerned whether the attorney-client privilege—a protection for certain confidential communications between a lawyer and client—applied. The opinion cites authority permitting a court to review materials privately and under seal when deciding whether the privilege applies.

Ruling

The court stated that Atos had satisfied its burden with respect to all seven documents. The opinion does not state additional details about the documents, the specific privilege analysis, or the underlying claims.

Disposition

The order concludes with “SO ORDERED.” It does not separately identify a motion as granted or denied.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.