
    A. FARBER AND PARTNERS, INC., in its capacity as Canadian Court-Appointed Interim Receiver over the assets of Salim Damji, Strategic Trading Systems Instant White a/k/a STS Systems a/k/a Strategic Trade Systems a/k/a STS, Inc., Jem Holdings, a division of 1289629 Ontario, Inc., Izmo, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Maynard Hal GARBER, a/k/a Chuck Garber, Hal Maynard Garber Nigel Roberts, Robert Albert Fox and Robert Fox; et al., Defendants—Appel-lees, CDG Partners II Ltd., a California limited partnership; et al., Defendants—Appellees, and Offshore Experts Company, Ltd., a Belize corporation Douglas Singh; et al., Defendants, Montanas Magicas Del Sur S.A., a Costa Rican corporation Montanas Magicas Del Sur S.A., a Belize corporation; et al., Defendants. A. Farber and Partners, Inc., in its capacity as Canadian Court-Appointed Interim Receiver over the assets of Salim Damji, Strategic Trading Systems Instant White a/k/a STS Systems a/k/a Strategic Trade Systems a/k/a STS, Inc., Jem Holdings, a division of 1289629 Ontario, Inc., Izmo, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Maynard Hal Garber, a/k/a Chuck Gar-ber, Hal Maynard Garber Nigel Roberts, Robert Albert Fox and Robert Fox; et al., Defendants—Appellees, and Montanas Magicas Del Sur S.A., a Costa Rican corporation Montanas Magicas Del Sur S.A., a Belize corporation; et al., Defendants.
    Nos. 07-55004, 07-55856.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Feb. 12, 2009.
    
      Evan Granowitz, Shulman Hodges & Bastían LLP, Foothill Ranch, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    James D. Henderson, Jr., Esquire, Law Offices of James D. Henderson, Jr., Alan H. Finkel, Esquire, Zimmermann Koomer Connolly Finkel & Gosselin, LLP, Los An-geles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Ronald J. Davis, II, Esquire, Law Offices of Ronald J. Davis, II, Jacksonville, FL, for Defendants.
    Before: NOONAN and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges, and CONLON, District Judge.
    
      
       The Honorable Suzanne B. Conlon, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
    
   ORDER

On January 7, 2009, Appellant moved this court for clarification regarding the district court’s denial of a joint stipulation on attorney-client privileged documents. Appellant’s unopposed motion for clarification is granted. The district court abused its discretion in summarily denying the proposed order for lack of good cause. The district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the portion of the proposed order that would require the clerk to redact privileged material from filed pleadings. The district court’s denial of the parties’ joint stipulation is REVERSED in part and REMANDED.  