Showing 580 of 580 results

Chapter: 16.7

Case Name: Astiana v. Ben & Jerry's Homemade, Inc., No. C-10-04387 PJH (EDL), 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23195, at *15 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2014)
(finding that neither the attorney client privilege nor the work product doctrine protected guidelines prepared by defendant's parent Unilever because the guidelines were not motivated by the need for legal advice or by litigation, despite a Unilever in-house lawyer's affidavit; "The mere mention of the legal department and that certain statements are subject to its approval does not give rise to privilege in the absence of a request for or provision of legal advice.")

Case Date Jurisidction State Cite Checked
2014-02-21 Federal CA B 8/14

Chapter: 16.7

Case Name: United States v. Moazzeni, Case No. 3:12CR45-HEH, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171240, at *18-19 (E.D. Va. Dec. 3, 2012)
("[H]e has provided a privilege log that includes only a general description of each document, but little if any explanation as to why each document is privileged. This places the burden on the Court to surmise the basis for privilege as best as it can glean from its in camera review. On their face, a number of these documents appear to contain no privileged material. These include communications between counsel and third parties, emails scheduling appointments or discussing administrative matters, and communications regarding the scope of representation. Without further explanation, evidence, or authority, the Court concludes that none of these documents are privileged." (footnotes omitted))

Case Date Jurisidction State Cite Checked
2012-12-03 Federal VA B 5/13

Chapter: 16.7

Case Name: Scott & Stringfellow, LLC v. AIG Commercial Equip. Fin., Inc., Civ. No. 3:10cv825-HEH-DWD, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51028, at *9-10 (E.D. Va. May 12, 2011)
("Document 1 involves an email chain of communications between various AIG employees and general counsel. The subject of the communications concerns a business meeting. The document makes no reference to any particular legal issue. While general counsel is a recipient of the email chain, the communications do not explicitly ask for legal advice, opinions, or oversight. Furthermore, the attorney's response is limited to clarifying a business issue and scheduling a meeting. Consequently, though the communication is between a client and attorney, Document 1 is not subject to the attorney client privilege because the purpose of the document is not to provide an opinion on law, legal services, or to provide assistance in some legal context.")

Case Date Jurisidction State Cite Checked
2011-05-12 Federal VA B 4/13

Chapter: 16.7

Case Name: Henson v. Wyeth Lab., Inc., 118 F.R.D. 584, 587 (W.D. Va. 1987)
("In fact for the privilege to apply, the client's confidential communication 'must be for the primary purpose of soliciting legal, rather than business, advice.'" (quoting North Carolina Elec. Membership Corp. v. Carolina Power & Light Co., 110 F.R.D. 511, 514 (M.D.N.C. 1986); finding it "remarkable" that the documents claimed to be privileged "do not contain specific requests for legal advice or services"))

Case Date Jurisidction State Cite Checked
1987-01-01 Federal VA

Chapter: 16.7

Case Name: Henson v. Wyeth Lab., Inc., 118 F.R.D. 584, 587-588 (W.D. Va. 1987)
(holding that the lawyer "must be acting as an attorney and not simply as a business advisor" for communications to be privileged; finding that memoranda claimed to be privileged by Wyeth instead related to a business transaction and primarily contained business advice; "Remarkably, [the memoranda] do not contain specific requests for legal advice of services, and Wyeth has done little to show this court how these documents primarily could be tied to legal advice as opposed to business advice. . . . The court finds the documents to have been prepared primarily in a business capacity and not primarily in a legal capacity. Business advice is not privileged.")

Case Date Jurisidction State Cite Checked
1987-01-01 Federal VA

Chap