Showing 479 of 479 results

Chapter: 38.2

Case Name: Doe v. SeaDream Yacht Club Ltd., Case No. 17-20709-CIV-MORENO, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191933 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 16, 2017)
(analyzing an investigation into an assault on a ship; "Work product privilege shields reports when they are prepared in anticipation of litigation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3). While litigation need not be imminent, the document is only privileged if it was created with the primary motivating purpose of aiding in future litigation. . . . The mere fact that a document is prepared in response to an injury onboard does not mean that the report was prepared in anticipation of litigation.")

Case Date Jurisidction State Cite Checked
2017-11-16 Federal FL

Chapter: 38.2

Case Name: Doe v. SeaDream Yacht Club Ltd., Case No. 17-20709-CIV-MORENO, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191933 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 16, 2017)
(analyzing an investigation into an assault on a ship; "Work product privilege shields reports when they are prepared in anticipation of litigation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3). While litigation need not be imminent, the document is only privileged if it was created with the primary motivating purpose of aiding in future litigation. . . . The mere fact that a document is prepared in response to an injury onboard does not mean that the report was prepared in anticipation of litigation.")

Case Date Jurisidction State Cite Checked
2017-11-16 Federal FL

Chapter: 38.2

Case Name: Valley Force Ins. Co. v. Hartford Iron & Metal, Inc., No. 1:14-cv-00006-RLM-SLC, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57370 (N.D. Ind. April 14, 2017)
(holding that the environmental consultant was outside privilege protection, but could create protected work product; "Valley Forge's attempted parsing of Hartford Iron's environmental remediation efforts from its litigation purposes is unpersuasive. The record suggests that the threat of litigation with IDEM and the EPA 'was the motivating factor which moved [Hartford Iron] to complete the clean up of the [Hartford Iron] facility.'"; "In that regard, all of the emails with Keramida [Environmental contractor] and CH2M [Environmental contractor] were created after the parties became aware of the IDEM and EPA claims and after this lawsuit was filed."; "Having said that, the fact that the communications were prepared in the midst of litigation is not necessarily determinative, as the work-product privilege 'requires causation in the sense of the purpose or motivation for the creation of documents -- i.e., the intended use to which the documents were to be put -- not causation in the sense of a 'but for' sequence of events or influences.'"; "Accordingly, some categories of documents generally fall outside the scope of the work-product privilege. One example is mere transmittal communications."; "Another category of documents outside the scope of the work-product doctrine are communications dealing with merely administrative, logistical, or scheduling matters. . . . Here, as concluded infra, many of the emails reviewed in camera by the Court merely pertain to administrative, logistical, or scheduling matters, and thus, are not protected work product.")

Case Date Jurisidction State Cite Checked
2017-04-14 Federal IN

Chapter: 38.2

Case Name: Valley Force Ins. Co. v. Hartford Iron & Metal, Inc., No. 1:14-cv-00006-RLM-SLC, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57370 (N.D. Ind. April 14, 2017)
(holding that the environmental consultant was outside privilege protection, but could create protected work product; "Valley Forge's attempted parsing of Hartford Iron's environmental remediation efforts from its litigation purposes is unpersuasive. The record suggests that the threat of litigation with IDEM and the EPA 'was the motivating factor which moved [Hartford Iron] to complete the clean up of the [Hartford Iron] facility.'"; "In that regard, all of the emails with Keramida [Environmental contractor] and CH2M [Environmental contractor] were created after the parties became aware of the IDEM and EPA claims and after this lawsuit was filed."; "Having said that, the fact that the communications were prepared in the midst of litigation is not necessarily determinative, as the work-product privilege 'requires causation in the sense of the purpose or motivation for the creation of documents -- i.e., the intended use to which the documents were to be put -- not causation in the sense of a 'but for' sequence of events or influences.'"; "Accordingly, some categories of documents generally fall outside the scope of the work-product privilege. One example is mere transmittal communications."; "Another category of documents outside the scope of the work-product doctrine are communications dealing with merely administrative, logistical, or scheduling matters. . . . Here, as concluded infra, many of the emails reviewed in camera by the Court merely pertain to administrative, logistical, or scheduling matters, and thus, are not protected work product.")

Case Date Jurisidction State Cite Checked
2017-04-14 Federal IN
Comment:

key case


Chapter: 38.2

Case Name: Bousamra v. Excela Health, No. 1637 WDA 2015, 2017 Pa. Super. LEXIS 166 (Pa. Super. Ct. March 13, 2017)
("The work product protection 'shelters the mental processes of the attorney' so that the lawyer can 'analyze and prepare his client's case.'. . . It is an 'intensely practical' privilege and not all written materials prepared by counsel with litigation in mind are free from discovery.")

Case Date Jurisidction State Cite Checked
2017-03-13 State PA

Chapter: 38.2

Case Name: Motion Industries, Inc. v. Superior Derrick Services, LLC, Civ. A. No. 15-1958 Section: "H"(5), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23826 (E.D. La. Feb. 26, 2016)
(analyzing an internal corporate investigation into possibly improper transactions; holding that in the Fifth Circuit litigation need not be imminent to trigger the work product doctrine protection; "[T]he mere fact that a defendant anticipates litigation resulting from an incident does not automatically insulate investigative reports from discovery as work-product.")

Case Date Jurisidction State Cite Checked
2016-02-26 Federal LA