View by Topic
Work Product
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Compagnie v. Kolon Industries, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36530 (E.D. Va. Apr. 13, 2010).
Plaintiff's sharing of confidential information with government investigators did not waive work product privilege. Despite plaintiff's failure to include language in its email that the information was intended to remain privileged, plaintiff had a reasonable expectation that confidentiality of the information would be maintained.
Plaintiff's sharing of confidential information with government investigators did not waive work product privilege. Despite plaintiff's failure to include language in its email that the information was intended to remain privileged, plaintiff had a reasonable expectation that confidentiality of the information would be maintained.
Gerber v. Down East Community Hospital, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24054 (D. Me. Mar. 12, 2010).
Email interviews by plaintiff's counsel with potential witnesses and electronic documents created by plaintiffs during conversations with potential witnesses were protected from discovery by the work product doctrine. Plaintiffs' privilege log had to itemize the documents by date but did not have to provide the names of the potential witnesses.
Email interviews by plaintiff's counsel with potential witnesses and electronic documents created by plaintiffs during conversations with potential witnesses were protected from discovery by the work product doctrine. Plaintiffs' privilege log had to itemize the documents by date but did not have to provide the names of the potential witnesses.
Fojtasek v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107478 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 6, 2009).
An accident report prepared by a shore excursion tour operator pursuant to a policy determined by counsel for a cruise ship operator was protected from disclosure by the work product doctrine and the theory of joint defense.
An accident report prepared by a shore excursion tour operator pursuant to a policy determined by counsel for a cruise ship operator was protected from disclosure by the work product doctrine and the theory of joint defense.
Pulse Engineering, Inc. v. Mascon, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92971 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2009).
Post-complaint email between an employee of defendant seller in a patent infringement action and employees of the non-party manufacturer of the infringing product was protected under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3) from disclosure to plaintiff by the work product doctrine. The email concerned tests of the product by the manufacturer conducted at the request of litigation counsel for the seller due to the pending litigation.
Post-complaint email between an employee of defendant seller in a patent infringement action and employees of the non-party manufacturer of the infringing product was protected under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3) from disclosure to plaintiff by the work product doctrine. The email concerned tests of the product by the manufacturer conducted at the request of litigation counsel for the seller due to the pending litigation.
Wood v. Archbold Medical Center, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84866 (M.D. Ga. Sept. 17, 2009).
Email requested from a defendant by other defendants had to be produced because attorney work product protection for the email had been waived when it was shared with plaintiff. Plaintiff doctor alleged that defendant hospital conspired with several doctor defendants to restrain competition. The hospital sought production from one of the defendant doctors all communications of that doctor with plaintiff or plaintiff's counsel. The doctor produced four documents and a privilege log listing 173 emails between his attorney and several attorneys for plaintiffs.
Email requested from a defendant by other defendants had to be produced because attorney work product protection for the email had been waived when it was shared with plaintiff. Plaintiff doctor alleged that defendant hospital conspired with several doctor defendants to restrain competition. The hospital sought production from one of the defendant doctors all communications of that doctor with plaintiff or plaintiff's counsel. The doctor produced four documents and a privilege log listing 173 emails between his attorney and several attorneys for plaintiffs.
Coburn Group, LLC v. Whitecap Advisors LLC, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69188 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 7, 2009).
An email containing work product was inadvertently disclosed within the meaning of Fed. R. Evid. 502(b)(1) because its inclusion in a document production simply was a mistake. Return of the email was ordered because use of experienced paralegals to review documents was reasonable, and counsel promptly sought return of the document once he learned it had been produced inadvertently.
An email containing work product was inadvertently disclosed within the meaning of Fed. R. Evid. 502(b)(1) because its inclusion in a document production simply was a mistake. Return of the email was ordered because use of experienced paralegals to review documents was reasonable, and counsel promptly sought return of the document once he learned it had been produced inadvertently.
South Yuba River Citizens League v. National Marine Fisheries Service, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42967 (E.D. Cal. May 6, 2009).
Attorney work product communicated to an expert who supplied a declaration for plaintiff in support of a motion for preliminary injunction had to be disclosed to defendant pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) because “any material, including attorney opinion, considered by a testifying expert in formation of his testimony is not protected by the work product rule.”
Attorney work product communicated to an expert who supplied a declaration for plaintiff in support of a motion for preliminary injunction had to be disclosed to defendant pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) because “any material, including attorney opinion, considered by a testifying expert in formation of his testimony is not protected by the work product rule.”
Schanfield v. Sojitz Corporation of America, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17354 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2009).
Plaintiff’s email with his sisters and a relative about his planned discrimination lawsuit against his former employer was protected from disclosure by the attorney work product doctrine because the email was prepared by plaintiff or his counsel in anticipation of litigation.
Plaintiff’s email with his sisters and a relative about his planned discrimination lawsuit against his former employer was protected from disclosure by the attorney work product doctrine because the email was prepared by plaintiff or his counsel in anticipation of litigation.
Rohm & Haas Co. v. Dow Chem. Co., 2009 Del. Ch. LEXIS 31 (Del. Ch. Feb. 26, 2009).
Defendant’s “Litigation Support Model” -- created by programming new data and assumptions, including potential settlement strategies, into an existing “Enterprise Model” – was protected from discovery by the work product doctrine because it was prepared in anticipation of litigation and plaintiff failed to show a substantial need for it.
Defendant’s “Litigation Support Model” -- created by programming new data and assumptions, including potential settlement strategies, into an existing “Enterprise Model” – was protected from discovery by the work product doctrine because it was prepared in anticipation of litigation and plaintiff failed to show a substantial need for it.
Boyer v. Gildea, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6952 (N.D. Ind. Jan. 29, 2009).
Email from a bankruptcy trustee’s former counsel to the trustee’s current counsel was protected from discovery by the work product doctrine because the communications contained the mental impressions of the former counsel about litigation and could reveal the trustee’s legal strategy.
Email from a bankruptcy trustee’s former counsel to the trustee’s current counsel was protected from discovery by the work product doctrine because the communications contained the mental impressions of the former counsel about litigation and could reveal the trustee’s legal strategy.
Cintas Corp. No. 2 v. Transcontinental Granite, Inc., 2008 Va. Cir. LEXIS 153 (Va. Cir. Ct. Oct. 27, 2008).
Under a Virginia rule with operative language identical to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3), the court held that work product protection for a document applied to documents prepared in anticipation of any litigation rather than in anticipation only of the litigation in which the work product protection was asserted.
Under a Virginia rule with operative language identical to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3), the court held that work product protection for a document applied to documents prepared in anticipation of any litigation rather than in anticipation only of the litigation in which the work product protection was asserted.
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. United States, 2008 U.S. Claims LEXIS 239 (Fed. Cl. Aug. 28, 2008).
Regardless of the intent or purpose of a government attorney in authoring or reviewing a document, the attorney work product doctrine did not apply to factual material in the document.
Regardless of the intent or purpose of a government attorney in authoring or reviewing a document, the attorney work product doctrine did not apply to factual material in the document.
United States Fire Ins. Co. v. Bunge North America, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49024 (D. Kan. June 23, 2008).
Selection and grouping by attorneys on a joint defense team of information received from government agencies pursuant to Freedom of Information Act and Kansas Open Records Act requests did not transform that information into attorney work product protected from discovery by plaintiff.
Selection and grouping by attorneys on a joint defense team of information received from government agencies pursuant to Freedom of Information Act and Kansas Open Records Act requests did not transform that information into attorney work product protected from discovery by plaintiff.
Association of Irritated Residents v. Dairy, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57459 (E.D. Cal. June 18, 2008).
Email between plaintiff’s counsel and plaintiff’s experts had to be disclosed to defendants pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) because even attorney work product had to be disclosed if it was communicated to an expert and used by the expert in forming an opinion.
Email between plaintiff’s counsel and plaintiff’s experts had to be disclosed to defendants pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) because even attorney work product had to be disclosed if it was communicated to an expert and used by the expert in forming an opinion.
Eakerns v. Kingman Regional Medical Center, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40346 (D. Ariz. May 7, 2008).
Plaintiff’s showing of need for an email between two attorneys containing information on a call from defendant for legal advice was insufficient to justify disclosure of the email after defendant raised an advice of counsel defense. Plaintiff had received the substantial equivalent of the email when defendant provided a copy of the letter sent to defendant by one of the attorneys following the email.
Plaintiff’s showing of need for an email between two attorneys containing information on a call from defendant for legal advice was insufficient to justify disclosure of the email after defendant raised an advice of counsel defense. Plaintiff had received the substantial equivalent of the email when defendant provided a copy of the letter sent to defendant by one of the attorneys following the email.
Retail Brand Alliance, Inc. v. Factory Mutual Insurance Co., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17746 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2008).
An attachment to an email sent to plaintiff's in-house counsel and others containing litigation strategy was not protected by the attorney-client privilege because the document did not imply a request for legal advice. However, the litigation strategy portion of the attachment was protected from disclosure by the attorney work product doctrine set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(A) & (B).
An attachment to an email sent to plaintiff's in-house counsel and others containing litigation strategy was not protected by the attorney-client privilege because the document did not imply a request for legal advice. However, the litigation strategy portion of the attachment was protected from disclosure by the attorney work product doctrine set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(A) & (B).
Rico v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp., "Rico II", 2007 Cal. LEXIS 13892 (Cal. Dec. 13, 2007).
According to the California Supreme Court, "an attorney who receives privileged documents through inadvertence . may not read a document any more closely than is necessary to ascertain that it is privileged. Once it becomes apparent that the content is privileged, counsel must immediately notify opposing counsel and try to resolve the situation." The Court affirmed disqualification of plaintiffs' attorney and experts after the attorney used work product of defendant's attorney to impeach a defense expert.
According to the California Supreme Court, "an attorney who receives privileged documents through inadvertence . may not read a document any more closely than is necessary to ascertain that it is privileged. Once it becomes apparent that the content is privileged, counsel must immediately notify opposing counsel and try to resolve the situation." The Court affirmed disqualification of plaintiffs' attorney and experts after the attorney used work product of defendant's attorney to impeach a defense expert.
Cambrians for Thoughtful Development, U.A. v. Didion Milling, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88878 (W.D. Wisc. Nov. 27, 2007).
Email from a company's outside counsel to the company's employees and consultants regarding an administrative agency's enforcement conference was work product protected under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3) from discovery in a citizen suit against the company.
Email from a company's outside counsel to the company's employees and consultants regarding an administrative agency's enforcement conference was work product protected under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3) from discovery in a citizen suit against the company.
Parkdale America, LLC v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88820 (W.D.N.C. Nov. 19, 2007).
Companies seeking insurance coverage of their settlements of antitrust claims were obligated under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B) to provide the insurer with additional email because they failed to show that their cost of additional production outweighed the importance of the proposed discovery in resolving critical factual issues.
Companies seeking insurance coverage of their settlements of antitrust claims were obligated under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B) to provide the insurer with additional email because they failed to show that their cost of additional production outweighed the importance of the proposed discovery in resolving critical factual issues.
Coachmen Industries, Inc. v. Kemlite, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82196 (N.D. Ind. Nov. 2, 2007).
In a matter of first impression, the court held that a plaintiff had standing to assert work product privilege for work product of attorneys for the plaintiff in another case because plaintiffs essentially were allies in litigating their nearly identical cases against defendant.
In a matter of first impression, the court held that a plaintiff had standing to assert work product privilege for work product of attorneys for the plaintiff in another case because plaintiffs essentially were allies in litigating their nearly identical cases against defendant.
Curto v. Medical World Communications, Inc., "Curto II", 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35464 (E.D.N.Y. May 15, 2007).
A magistrate judge's determination that two draft memoranda plaintiff emailed to herself were protected under the work-product doctrine was not clearly erroneous. However, the court ordered the magistrate judge to consider the matter further because defendants were entitled to present their argument that their access to the protected documents should be allowed in light of their substantial need.
A magistrate judge's determination that two draft memoranda plaintiff emailed to herself were protected under the work-product doctrine was not clearly erroneous. However, the court ordered the magistrate judge to consider the matter further because defendants were entitled to present their argument that their access to the protected documents should be allowed in light of their substantial need.
Beinin v. Center for the Study of Popular Culture, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22518 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2007).
Email of plaintiff with third parties shortly before suit was filed was shown to be work product and properly withheld from discovery.
Email of plaintiff with third parties shortly before suit was filed was shown to be work product and properly withheld from discovery.
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Nacchio, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5435 (D. Colo. Jan. 25, 2007).
The SEC was not required to provide a document-by-document privilege log for work product documents that were described by time period and authors, addressees, and recipients and were represented by SEC counsel to have been prepared in anticipation of anticipated or pending litigation.
The SEC was not required to provide a document-by-document privilege log for work product documents that were described by time period and authors, addressees, and recipients and were represented by SEC counsel to have been prepared in anticipation of anticipated or pending litigation.
McDonald v. HCA Health Services of Oklahoma, Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89798 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 11, 2006).
Although defendant's privilege log was untimely, failed to describe documents accurately, and failed to refer to the correct privilege, the court declined to find that defendant had waived privilege because withholding the documents did not unduly prejudice plaintiff.
Although defendant's privilege log was untimely, failed to describe documents accurately, and failed to refer to the correct privilege, the court declined to find that defendant had waived privilege because withholding the documents did not unduly prejudice plaintiff.
Ashanti v. California Department of Corrections, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71114 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2006).
Inadvertently produced documents that on their face were covered by the attorney work product doctrine were ordered returned.
Inadvertently produced documents that on their face were covered by the attorney work product doctrine were ordered returned.
Miller v. Holzmann, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94655 (D.D.C. Sept. 14, 2006).
The government was ordered to disclose which 20,000 documents it chose to scan from 150,000 documents produced by a defendant. The identification of scanned documents was fact work product rather than opinion work product, and the defendant had a substantial need for the information that could not be met otherwise.
The government was ordered to disclose which 20,000 documents it chose to scan from 150,000 documents produced by a defendant. The identification of scanned documents was fact work product rather than opinion work product, and the defendant had a substantial need for the information that could not be met otherwise.
Laurence Paris & Interpharm Development, S.A. v. R. P. Scherer Corp., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47413 (D. N.J. Jul. 13, 2006).
Two email documents inadvertently produced in litigation were generated in the ordinary course of business two years prior to the commencement of litigation and did not qualify for protection under the work product doctrine.
Two email documents inadvertently produced in litigation were generated in the ordinary course of business two years prior to the commencement of litigation and did not qualify for protection under the work product doctrine.
Isom v. Bank of America, 2006 N.C. App. LEXIS 970 (N.C. Ct. App. May 2, 2006).
Email among bank officials and copied to bank attorneys was not protected from discovery in a wrongful termination action by a former bank employee because the email was not sent or received for the purpose of giving or seeking legal advice.
Email among bank officials and copied to bank attorneys was not protected from discovery in a wrongful termination action by a former bank employee because the email was not sent or received for the purpose of giving or seeking legal advice.
Ayers v. SGS Control Services, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10134 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2006).
Computation of underlying data is not protected by work product privilege. Defendants in an overtime pay dispute were ordered to produce a compilation of payroll and timekeeping data although plaintiffs could construct the same compilation from computer records. The underlying data in the compilation was not privileged, and the court was obligated to bring about an inexpensive determination of every action.
Computation of underlying data is not protected by work product privilege. Defendants in an overtime pay dispute were ordered to produce a compilation of payroll and timekeeping data although plaintiffs could construct the same compilation from computer records. The underlying data in the compilation was not privileged, and the court was obligated to bring about an inexpensive determination of every action.
Tilberg v. Next Mgmt. Co.,, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36336 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 2005).
Email among non-lawyer employees of defendant and a consultant concerning what documents should be produced in response to plaintiff's discovery request was protected by the attorney work-product privilege and was not required to be disclosed.
Email among non-lawyer employees of defendant and a consultant concerning what documents should be produced in response to plaintiff's discovery request was protected by the attorney work-product privilege and was not required to be disclosed.
Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Department of Justice,, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 28730 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 27, 2005).
Factual material in email that was attorney work product and exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act did not have to be separated from opinions and analysis in the email and produced by the government. The entire contents of attorney work product email, including facts, law, opinions, and analysis, were exempt from disclosure.
Factual material in email that was attorney work product and exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act did not have to be separated from opinions and analysis in the email and produced by the government. The entire contents of attorney work product email, including facts, law, opinions, and analysis, were exempt from disclosure.
Jinks-Umstead v. England,, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17674 (D.D.C. Aug. 24, 2005).
In reviewing documents that the Secretary of the Navy claimed were privileged, a magistrate judge held that plaintiff had no need for an email from an agency counsel to an information systems director requesting general information about the agency's information system. During discovery, plaintiff already had received email that was maintained in the system.
In reviewing documents that the Secretary of the Navy claimed were privileged, a magistrate judge held that plaintiff had no need for an email from an agency counsel to an information systems director requesting general information about the agency's information system. During discovery, plaintiff already had received email that was maintained in the system.
Cellco Partnership v. Nextel Communication, Inc., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12717 (S.D.N.Y. July 9, 2004).
Defendant's advertising agency was compelled to turn over seven emails to plaintiff. The emails were from a marketing employee of defendant containing advice of counsel. However, the agency was not required to turn over one email from the marketing employee that was work product because it relayed legal advice given in anticipation of other litigation.
Defendant's advertising agency was compelled to turn over seven emails to plaintiff. The emails were from a marketing employee of defendant containing advice of counsel. However, the agency was not required to turn over one email from the marketing employee that was work product because it relayed legal advice given in anticipation of other litigation.
Portis v. City of Chicago,, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12640 (N.D. Ill. July 6, 2004).
Plaintiffs in a federal civil rights class action had to produce a database they prepared from information received from defendant city because the database would not disclose plaintiffs' litigation strategy and it would be an undue hardship for the city to compile its own database. However, the court ordered the city to pay its "fair share" of the cost of producing the database.
Plaintiffs in a federal civil rights class action had to produce a database they prepared from information received from defendant city because the database would not disclose plaintiffs' litigation strategy and it would be an undue hardship for the city to compile its own database. However, the court ordered the city to pay its "fair share" of the cost of producing the database.
Rico v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp., 2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 219 (Cal. App. Feb. 25, 2004), petition for review granted, 2004 Cal. LEXIS 4830 (Cal. June 9, 2004).
Disqualification of plaintiffs' attorneys and experts was affirmed due to their copying and use of a defense attorney's document unintentionally left in a deposition room.
Disqualification of plaintiffs' attorneys and experts was affirmed due to their copying and use of a defense attorney's document unintentionally left in a deposition room.
Baptiste v. Cushman & Wakefield, Inc., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2579 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 20, 2004).
Portion of email message conveying information about outside counsel's recommendations is protected by privilege, even though not authored by or addressed to an attorney.
Portion of email message conveying information about outside counsel's recommendations is protected by privilege, even though not authored by or addressed to an attorney.
United States v. Rigas, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16639 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).
Inadvertent disclosure does not waive privilege when reasonable precautions against disclosure were taken.
Inadvertent disclosure does not waive privilege when reasonable precautions against disclosure were taken.
Kintera, Inc. v. Convio, Inc., 219 F.R.D. 503 (S.D. Cal. 2003).
Court determines that emails regarding witness statements are protected as work product.
Court determines that emails regarding witness statements are protected as work product.
Koen Book Distributors v. Powell, Trachman, Logan, Carrle, Bowman & Lombardo, P.C., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24743 (E.D. Pa. December 13, 2002).
Defendants were ordered to produce e-mails in legal malpractice suit because they were not protected by the work product doctrine nor the attorney-client privilege.
Defendants were ordered to produce e-mails in legal malpractice suit because they were not protected by the work product doctrine nor the attorney-client privilege.
St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. SSA Gulf Terminals, Inc., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11776 (E.D. La. June 10, 2002).
Emails protected by work product doctrine.
Emails protected by work product doctrine.
In re Bloomfield Mfg. Co., 977 S.W.2d 389, 1998 Tex. App. LEXIS 2075, 98:38 Tex. Civil Op. Serv. 119 (Tex. App. San Antonio Apr. 8, 1998).
Injury report database was protected work product.
Injury report database was protected work product.
Wesley College v. Pitts, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13400 (D. Del. August 11, 1997).
Relief was granted from a stipulated protective order that declared an email confidential because the email was not intercepted in violation of a statute and it was not protected work product.
Relief was granted from a stipulated protective order that declared an email confidential because the email was not intercepted in violation of a statute and it was not protected work product.
Ciba-Geigy Corp. v. Sandoz Ltd., 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20731 (D. N.J. January 2, 1996).
Because defendants did not undertake reasonable precautions to avoid unintentional disclosures of privileged documents, motion for protective order was denied.
Because defendants did not undertake reasonable precautions to avoid unintentional disclosures of privileged documents, motion for protective order was denied.
Scovish v. Upjohn Co., 1995 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3288 (Conn. Super. Ct. November 22, 1995).
Bates-stamp index and database were discoverable except parts that were subjective comment as to value, strategy, or opinion.
Bates-stamp index and database were discoverable except parts that were subjective comment as to value, strategy, or opinion.
United States v. Keystone Sanitation Company, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20333 (M.D. Pa. October 19, 1994).
Defendants' inadvertent disclosure of e-mails during discovery waived any attorney-client privilege or work product protection.
Defendants' inadvertent disclosure of e-mails during discovery waived any attorney-client privilege or work product protection.
Shipes v. BIC Corp., 154 F.R.D. 301, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3133, 29 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 922 (M.D. Ga. Mar. 11, 1994).
Claims management database was protected work product.
Claims management database was protected work product.
Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12729 (E.D. N.C. August 3, 1992)
Where compilation and printed results of database searches reflected the legal strategy of counsel and were conducted in anticipation of litigation, work product doctrine applied.
Where compilation and printed results of database searches reflected the legal strategy of counsel and were conducted in anticipation of litigation, work product doctrine applied.
Santiago v. Miles, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9363 (W.D. N.Y. July 26, 1988).
Motion to compel disclosure of computer printouts was denied in part because of defense counsel's participation in developing the program on which they were located. As the printouts reflected counsel's mental impressions, the work-product privilege applied.
Motion to compel disclosure of computer printouts was denied in part because of defense counsel's participation in developing the program on which they were located. As the printouts reflected counsel's mental impressions, the work-product privilege applied.
Hoffman v. United Telecommunications, Inc., 117 F.R.D. 436 (D. Kan. 1987).
In an employee's discrimination action, the employer was not required to disclose detailed computer information from a file on company personnel set up for purposes of the litigation unless the employer decided to use information derived from the computer file for expert reports or as other evidence at trial.
In an employee's discrimination action, the employer was not required to disclose detailed computer information from a file on company personnel set up for purposes of the litigation unless the employer decided to use information derived from the computer file for expert reports or as other evidence at trial.
