Latest Posts › Discovery

Share:

Courts Address Work Product Protection for Non-Testifying Consulting Experts: Part I

Many courts address the discovery available from a litigant's testifying experts. Fewer courts assess discovery of a litigant's consultant retained to provide background expertise rather than testifying. ...more

Courts Apply the "Intensely Practical" Work Product Doctrine: Part II

Last week's Privilege Point described a court’s rejection of work product protection for a preprinted post-accident form with seemingly helpful boilerplate language about its purpose and a lawyer's involvement — but without...more

Can the Loser Immediately Appeal an Order Requiring Production of Privileged Communications?

One might think that a litigant should be able to file an interlocutory appeal of an order to produce arguably privileged documents. In such an obvious "cat out of the bag" situation, waiting until a final order does not do...more

Source and Choice of Privilege Law in Federal Courts: Part I

Lawyers dealing with attorney-client privilege questions obviously must assess what privilege law applies. Federal courts understandably apply federal privilege common law (essentially garden-variety principles) in federal...more

If a Court Finds Attorney-Client Privilege Waiver, Must It Also Consider Work Product Waiver?

The attorney-client privilege provides absolute protection, but is very fragile. Work product doctrine protection does not provide absolute protection (fact work product protection can be overcome), but is robust. Of course,...more

Delaware Court Addresses the Privilege Implications of an Evenly Split Corporate Board’s Feud

Not surprisingly, Delaware state courts frequently address privilege issues triggered by corporate board disputes. Those often guide other states' courts' analyses of similar scenarios....more

Hickman Work Product Protection Extends Beyond the Work Product Rule

Just about the time that extensive pre-trial discovery started, the Supreme Court recognized a new evidentiary protection – extending beyond the attorney-client privilege, and motivated by the understandable requirement that...more

New Jersey Federal Court Articulates Attorney-Client Privilege’s Societal Purpose Justifying Its Absolute Protection

Lawyers should always consider every possible evidentiary protection their clients might legitimately assert. To put it in basic terms, the ancient attorney-client privilege has the advantage of providing absolute protection...more

Adversaries Normally Can Explore Background Facts About Communications Withheld as Privileged

Attorney-client privilege protection focuses on communications' content, but those communications' context can shed light on their primary purpose, possible inapplicability because of third parties' presence, etc. So...more

Plaintiff Relying on a Former Lawyer’s Testimony Can’t Avoid a Privilege Waiver

Most courts hold that a litigant does not automatically waive privilege protection by listing a former lawyer as a witness – because that lawyer might testify about non-privileged facts. But not surprisingly, such a step can...more

You Textin' to Me? Robert De Niro Loses a Work Product Claim

Actor Robert De Niro's feud with a former production company manager has generated several opinions by Southern District of New York Magistrate Judge Katharine Parker. In Robinson v. De Niro, No. 19-CV-9156 (LJL) (KHP),...more

Why Is a D.C. Federal Court Analyzing a State "Control Group" Privilege Standard, but the Federal Work Product Rule?: Part II

Last week's Privilege Point addressed a D.C. federal court's application of the Illinois "control group" privilege standard in a transferred case. In South Capitol Bridgebuilders v. Lexington Insurance Co., Case No....more

Courts Wrestle With the "Facts" vs. "Communications" Dilemma: Part II

Last week's Privilege Point described a court's careful delineation between the logistics (time, place, etc.) of a privileged communication and such communications' explicit or implicit privileged content. The stakes...more

New York State Court Recognizes a General Privilege Rule, But The S.D.N.Y. Carries It To An Astoundingly Impractical Extreme: Part...

Every lawyer knows that attorney-client privilege protection depends on a communication’s "primary" or "predominant" purpose. A handful of courts have been inching toward a more expansive view (which will be the subject of a...more

Court Explains How Employee-to-Employee Emails Can Deserve Privilege Protection

Because privilege logs necessarily contain logistical but not content-based information about withheld documents, adversaries sometimes challenge privilege protection because no lawyer sent or received a withheld document....more

Courts Address Work Product Issues: Part II

Last week's Privilege Point addressed litigants' need to identify the exact moment when they first anticipated litigation. Another work product issue involves the degree of protection afforded opinion work product....more

Courts Address Work Product Issues: Part I

Because work product protection applies only when the creator is in or reasonably anticipates litigation, a litigant asserting that protection must know exactly when that occurred. In other words, as of one moment the...more

Delaware Federal Court Cleverly Finesses Frequently Arising Privilege Issue

Nearly every court requires that litigants analyze possible privilege and work product protection for each attachment included in a withheld email or other document. This understandable approach raises an obvious question...more

S.D.N.Y. Deals With Spouses and Law Firm Emails: Part I

Most states have adopted some variation of what is called the "spousal privilege" or "marital privilege." Those usually appear in statutes or rules, and dramatically vary from state to state. For obvious reasons, spouses'...more

Eighth Circuit and S.D.N.Y. Opinions Highlight Common-Sense Strategy to Maximize Privilege Protection

While lawyers should familiarize themselves with the sometimes counter-intuitive and nuanced privilege law, they should never lose sight of the nitty-gritty of courts' application of that law. The attorney-client privilege...more

Courts Differ on the Meaning of the Work Product Rule’s "Anticipation" and "Litigation" Elements: Part I

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)'s and parallel state work product rules apply to documents and tangible things prepared "in anticipation of litigation or for trial." But the Rule does not specify the degree of required...more

What Is the Garner Doctrine, and Why Is It Dangerous?

Under what is called the "fiduciary exception," a fiduciary's beneficiary sometimes may access otherwise privileged communications between the fiduciary and its lawyer – based on the law's artificial identification of the...more

Court Issues Strange Intangible Work Product Decision

Although the federal work product rule and parallel state work product rules extend only to "documents and tangible things," most courts also protect intangible work product such as oral communications – at least to the...more

Two Moms, Two Cases and Two Different Results: Part II

Last week's Privilege Point described a court's curt rejection of attorney-client privilege protection for a plaintiff's communications with her mom – and noted the court's surprising failure to address an obvious work...more

Two Moms, Two Cases and Two Different Results: Part I

Somewhat counter-intuitively, attorney client privilege protection is so fragile that even a family member often falls outside privilege protection (unless that family member was necessary to facilitate communications between...more

156 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 7

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide