se admissibility rule. “The waiver of the attorney-client privilege, however, results from the ACRD’s public disclosure of its attorney’s legal conclusions, not the admissibility of the reasonable cause determination into evidence.” (Doc. 83 at 16 n. 3). The ACRD’s argument makes no effort to establish that, under state law, the ACRD did not waive any attorney-client privilege it may have had in the reasonable cause determination. As a result, the Motion does not meet the standard required for this Court to reconsider its order. II. Motion For Stay After consideration, Plaintiffs Motion for Stay is denied in part and granted in part. Pursuant to Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Norman Carpenter, Plaintiffs motion to stay pending appeal is denied. — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 599, 175 L.Ed.2d 458 (2009) (<HOLDING>). Further the Court declines to certify the
holding that the information is not protected by attorneyclient privilege holding that orders overruling claims of privilege and requiring disclosure are immediately appealable as collateral orders holding that disqualification orders do not fall in the collateral order exception holding that disclosure orders adverse to the attorneyclient privilege do not qualify for immediate appeal under the collateral order doctrine recognizing the collateral order doctrine for the first time