Page:Sega Enterprises v. Accolade.pdf/24

 have set forth. The parties have presented arguments regarding the hardships they would suffer under various circumstances. We believe those arguments should be weighed by the district court before any affirmative relief is ordered. Moreover, the parties may have additional factual material they wish to present regarding the question of Accolade’s right to preliminary injunctive relief. Pending further consideration of this matter by the district court, we are content to let the matter rest where it stands, with each party as free to act as it was before the issuance of preliminary injunctive relief. We are confident that preserving the status quo in this manner will not lead to any serious injury. Costs on appeal shall be assessed against Sega.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED.

Before: PREGERSON, D.W. NELSON, and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.

In light of the petition for rehearing filed by American Commerce National Bank (ACNB), we have reconsidered twelve attorney billing statements to determine whether they fall within the attorney-client privilege as outlined in our previous decision in this case. See Clarke v. American Commerce National Bank, 974 F.2d 127 (9th Cir.1992). We agree with ACNB that these bills contain information which, if disclosed, would reveal litigation strategy.

Accordingly, it is ordered that specific portions of these bills, as indicated by ACNB, are to be redacted before they are handed over to the Comptroller of the Currency. For this purpose, we have indicated on copies of the bills that will be returned to the district court those items to be redacted. The bills to be redacted are numbered: B000092–98, B000109–11, B000152, B000164.

With this order, the petition for rehearing is denied.