
    STATE of Texas, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, and Eric H. Holder, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States, Defendants, Wendy Davis, et. al., Intervenor-Defendants.
    Civil Action No. 11-1303.
    United States District Court, District of Columbia.
    Jan. 6, 2012.
    Angela Veronica Colmenero, David John Schenck, Matthew Hamilton Frederick, Office of the Attorney General, Austin, TX, Adam K. Mortara, Ashley C. Keller, Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP, Chicago, IL, John M. Hughes, Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP, Denver, CO, for Plaintiff.
    Bryan L. Sells, Daniel J. Freeman, Janie Allison Sitton, Olimpia E. Michel, Thornton Russell Nobile, Michelle Andrea McLeod, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendant.
    John M. Devaney, Marc Erik Elias, Perkins Coie, LLP, Mark A. Posner, Lawyers’ Committee For Civil Rights, Karen M. Soares, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, Washington, DC, Joseph Gerald Hebert, Alexandria, VA, Chad W. Dunn, Brazil & Dunn, Houston, TX, Joaquin Avila, Law Office of Joaquin G. Avila, Kevin J. Hamilton, Perkins Coie, LLP, Seattle, WA, Jose Garza, Law Office of Jose Garza, Nina Perales, Karolina J. Lyznik, Marisa Bono, Rebecca McNeill Couto, Mexican American Legal Defense an Educational Fund, San Antonio, TX, Renea Hicks, Law Offices of Max Renea Hicks, Robert Stephen Notzon, Gary L. Bledsoe, Law Office of Gary L. Bledsoe and Associates, Austin, TX, Jorge Martin Castillo, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, New York, NY, Allison Jean Riggs, Southern Coalition for Social Justice, Durham, NC, for Intervenor Defendants.
   ORDER

ROSEMARY M. COLLYER, District Judge.

This Court held a telephone status conference with the parties in this matter on January 6, 2012 in which the State of Texas represented that in light of the Court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on January 2, 2012, Dkt. ## 128, 129, it had obtained waivers from relevant members of the Texas State Legislature regarding any alleged attorney-client relationship they may have with the Texas Legislative Council. Texas will produce discovery pursuant to this waiver and asks the Court to vacate the portion of its Opinion relating to the existence of a privileged relationship between the Texas Legislative Council and members of the Texas State Legislature. The Defendants have no objection to such a vacatur. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the portion of the Memorandum Opinion, Dkt. # 128, relating to the existence of an attorney-client relationship between the Texas Legislative Council and members of the Texas State Legislature is VACATED.

SO ORDERED.  