Showing 42 of 42 results

Chapter: 53.2

Case Name: Berens v. Berens, 785 S.E.2d 733, 742 (N.C. Ct. App. 2016)
("We also are unable to determine based on the limited record whether the documents requested, or any of them, are subject to the work product doctrine. This determination is necessary only for documents which Defendant asserts are work product and which the trial court concludes are not protected by the attorney-client privilege.")

Case Date Jurisidction State Cite Checked
2016-04-19 Federal NC B 8/16

Chapter: 53.301

Case Name: Ctr. Partners, Ltd. v. Growth Head GP, LLC, 981 N.E.2d 345, 355 (Ill. 2012)
(holding that disclosure of privileged communications during an earlier business transaction did not trigger a subject matter waiver; "Our court rules govern disclosure of privileged material and work product during discovery.")

Case Date Jurisidction State Cite Checked
2012-01-01 State IL B 8/13

Chapter: 53.301

Case Name: Va. Sup. Ct. R. 4:1(b)(3)
("a party may obtain discovery of documents and tangible things otherwise discoverable under . . . this rule and prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or by or for that other party's representative (including the other party's attorney, consultant, surety, indemnitor, insurer, or agent) only upon a showing that the party seeking discovery has substantial need of the materials in the preparation of the party's case and that the party is unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means.")

Case Date Jurisidction State Cite Checked
Other VA

Chapter: 53.302

Case Name: Giovinazzo v. Susquehanna Bank, No. 3147 EDA 2014, 2016 Pa. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2305 (Pa. July 1, 2016)
(explaining that Pennsylvania's work product rule only covers what generally is considered to be opinion work product; "The work-product doctrine is codified in Rule 4003.3 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. This rule states in pertinent part: 'Subject to the provisions of Rules 4003.4 and 4003.5 a party may obtain discovery of any matter discoverable under Rule 4003.1 even though prepared in anticipation of litigation or trial by or for another party or by or for that other party's representative, including his attorney . . . insurer or agent. The discovery shall not include disclosure of the mental impressions of a party's attorney or his conclusions, opinions, memoranda notes, or summaries, legal research or legal theories. With respect to the representative of a party other than the party's attorney, discovery shall not include disclosure of his mental impressions, conclusions, or opinions respecting the value or merit of a claim or defense or respecting strategy or tactics.'")

Case Date Jurisidction State Cite Checked
2016-07-01 Federal PA

Chapter: 53.302

Case Name: Brown v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., No. 1167 EDA 2015, No. 1169 EDA 2015, No. 1174 EDA 2015, No. 1602 EDA 2015, No. 1866 EDA 2015, No. 1879 EDA 2015, No. 1931 EDA 2015, No. 1932 EDA 2015, 2016 Pa. Super. LEXIS 288 (Pa. Super. May 24, 2016)
(holding that under Pennsylvania's work product rule, the protection does not extend to a mock deposition; "Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure also provide as follows: 'Subject to the provisions of Rules 4003.4 and 4003.5, a party may obtain discovery of any matter discoverable under Rule 4003.1 even though prepared in anticipation of litigation or trial by or for another party or by or for that other party's representative, including his or her attorney . . . insurer or agent. The discovery shall not include disclosure of the mental impressions of a party's attorney or his or her conclusions, opinions, memoranda, notes or summaries, legal research or legal theories. With respect to the representative of a party other than the party's attorney, discovery shall not include disclosure of his or her mental impressions, conclusions or opinions respecting the value or merit of a claim or defense or respecting strategy or tactics.' Pa. R.C.P. 4003.3.")

Case Date Jurisidction State Cite Checked
2016-05-24 Federal PA

Chapter: 53.302

Case Name: Fox Paine & Co., LLC v. Houston Cas. Co., No. 52607/2014, 2016 NY Slip Op 50635(U), at 15 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Apr. 21, 2016)
("The attorney work product privilege (CPLR 3101[c]) applies only to documents prepared by counsel, as an attorney, which reflect counsel's learning and professional skills, including legal research, analysis, conclusions, legal theory and strategy.")

Case Date Jurisidction State Cite Checked
2016-04-21 Federal NY B 8/16

Chapter: 53.302

Case Name: Fox Paine & Co., LLC v. Houston Cas. Co., No. 52607/2014, 2016 NY Slip Op 50635(U), at 15 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Apr. 21, 2016)
("The attorney work product privilege (CPLR 3101[c]) applies only to documents prepared by counsel, as an attorney, which reflect counsel's learning and professional skills, including legal research, analysis, conclusions, legal theory and strategy.")

Case Date Jurisidction State Cite Checked
2016-04-21 Federal NY B 8/16

Chapter: 53.302

Case Name: Baylor v. Mitchell Rubenstein & Associates, P.C., Civ. A. No. 13-1995 (ABJ), 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124152 (D.D.C. Sept. 17, 2015)
("'Because the Magistrate Judge found that Maryland and District of Columbia law apply the same formulation of the attorney-client privilege, he did not determine which law governed.'").

Case Date Jurisidction State Cite Checked
2015-09-17 Federal DC

Chapter: 53.302

Case Name: Johnson v. Ford Motor Co., Case No.: 3:13-cv-06529, Case No.: 3:13-cv-14207, Case No. 3:13-cv-20976, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119886 (S.D.W. Va. Sept. 3, 2015)
("'It is important to note that neither party has taken an explicit position on which jurisdiction's law governs with respect to questions concerning the existence of the attorney-client privilege. As previously indicated in this litigation, the Court could apply federal law, but there are also good arguments that either the law of Michigan or the law of West Virginia should be used. Since both parties cite extensively to federal law in their memoranda, the undersigned has applied federal law in this opinion.'").

Case Date Jurisidction State Cite Checked
2015-09-03 Federal WV

Chapter: 53.302

Case Name: Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. WMC Mortgage, LLC, 3:12-CV-933 (CSH), 3:12-CV-969 (CSH), 3:12-CV-1699 (CSH), 3:13-CV-1347 (CSH), 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49158 (D. Conn. April 14, 2015)
(adopting the "because of" work product standard; "It should be noted that under New York law, which governed MBIA, the party seeking work product protection is required to show that the documents were created primarily for the purpose of litigation, whereas the Second Circuit requires under Adlman II that the documents be created because of anticipated litigation, a standard that 'affords broader protection' against disclosure.")

Case Date Jurisidction State Cite Checked
2015-04-14 Federal CT

Chapter: 53.302

Case Name: Borgwarner, Inc. v. Kuhlman Elec. Corp., No. 1-13-1824, 2014 Ill. App. LEXIS 847 (Ill. 1d App. Dec. 8, 2014)
(applying the Waste Management doctrine; "Illinois Supreme Court Rule 201(b)(2) govern both the attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine: '[a]ll matters that are privileged against disclosure on the trial, including privileged communications between a party or his agent and the attorney for the party, are privileged against disclosure through any discovery procedure. Material prepared by or for a party in preparation for trial is subject to discovery only if it does not contain or disclose the theories, mental impressions, or litigation plans of the party's attorney.' Ill. S. Ct. R. 201(b)(2) (eff. Jan. 1, 2013)")

Case Date Jurisidction State Cite Checked
2014-12-08 State IL

Chapter: 53.302

Case Name: Cheung v. City of New York, No. 590208/2013, 157328/2012, 2014 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2465, at *10 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 30, 2014)
(describing New York state's work product rule; "[T]he City and the DEP have failed to establish with any specificity that the materials sought by the subpoena were prepared exclusively for litigation.")

Case Date Jurisidction State Cite Checked
2014-05-30 State NY

Chapter: 53.302

Case Name: Las Vegas Sands Corp. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 319 P.3d 618, 623 (Nev. 2014)
(applying Nevada's parallel to Rule 612; finding the same standard applied to documents a witness reviews before testifying or while testifying (thus requiring disclosure), but also noting that the exception only applies at the hearing where the witness testified; denying a request to order production of the documents because the adversary waited until after the hearing; "We conclude that the differences between NRS 50.125 and FRE 612 are significant. Whereas FRE 612 permits the district court's exercise of discretion to preclude disclosure of privileged documents used to refresh a witness's recollection before testifying, no such discretionary language exists in NRS 50.125. Without such language in NRS 50.125, Nevada district courts lack discretion to halt the disclosure of privileged documents when a witness uses the privileged documents to refresh his or her recollection prior to testifying. In the 40 years since the passage of FRE 612, the Nevada Legislature has had the option to bring NRS 50.125 in line with the federal rule by adding a discretionary prong, but has not. Thus, we conclude that NRS 50.125 mandates that documents relied on before and during testimony to refresh recollection be treated the same. We therefore decline to read a discretionary element into NRS 50.125 where the Legislature has provided none.")

Case Date Jurisidction State Cite Checked
2014-01-01 State NV B 7/14

Chapter: 53.302

Case Name: Las Vegas Sands Corp. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 319 P.3d 618, 623, 624 (Nev. 2014)
(applying Nevada's parallel to Rule 612; finding the same standard applied to documents a witness reviews before testifying or while testifying (thus requiring disclosure), but also noting that the exception only applies at the hearing where the witness testified; denying a request to order production of the documents because the adversary waited until after the hearing; "Jacobs did not properly invoke NRS 50.125 at the sanctions hearing, rendering the issue of Jones's credibility a moot point."; "We note that Jones's reliance on the purportedly privileged documents for the purposes of refreshing his recollection would have only required disclosure of the documents to opposing counsel upon appropriate request under NRS 50.125, and would not constitute any further waiver of the work product doctrine or the attorney-client privilege that would have made the documents discoverable at a later point."; "The district court read NRS 50.125 too broadly when it ordered the production of the billing entries and e-mails two months after Jones left the stand and after it issued its sanctions order.")

Case Date Jurisidction State Cite Checked
2014-01-01 State NV B 7/14

Chapter: 53.302

Case Name: 34-06 73, LLC v. Seneca Ins. Co., No. 652422/2011, 2013 NY Slip Op. 33048(U), at 2 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Dec. 4, 2013)
(analyzing privilege and work product protection in a first party insurance context; "Under CPLR [N.Y. Code of Civil Practice Law & Rules] §3101(c), an attorney's work product is immune from discovery. Similarly, CPLR §3101 (d) (2) conditionally protects materials prepared in anticipation of litigation.")

Case Date Jurisidction State Cite Checked
2013-12-04 State NY B 5/14

Chapter: 53.302

Case Name: 34-06 73, LLC v. Seneca Ins. Co., No. 652422/2011, 2013 NY Slip Op. 33048(U), at 1-2 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Dec. 4, 2013)
(analyzing privilege and work product protection in a first party insurance context; "The CPLR [N.Y. Code of Civil Practice Law & Rules] recognizes three categories of protected materials: attorney-client communications, attorney's work product, and trial preparation materials.")

Case Date Jurisidction State Cite Checked
2013-12-04 State NY B 5/14

Chapter: 53.302

Case Name: Satterlee Stephens Burke & Burke LLP v. Coney on the Park, LLC, No. 103294/11, 2013 N.Y. Slip Op, 31375(U), at 4, 4-5 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. June 10, 2013)
("In light of 'the strong public policy favoring full disclosure,' Atlantic Court [defendant] has the burden of proving each element of a privilege." (citation omitted); "An attorney's work product is entitled to absolute immunity (CPLR 3101 [c]), while materials prepared in anticipation of litigation are subject to conditional privilege (CPLR 3101[d]). . . . 'Lawyer's interviews, mental impressions and personal beliefs procured in the course of litigation are deemed to be an attorney's work product.' . . . However, the work product privilege has been construed narrowly. . . . Thus, to be shielded from discovery based on the work product privilege, it must be shown that the materials in issue are 'uniquely the products of a lawyer's learning and professional skills.'" (citation omitted))

Case Date Jurisidction State Cite Checked
2013-06-10 State NY B 4/14

Chapter: 53.302

Case Name: Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Motley Rice, L.L.C., 2013-Ohio-3233, at ¶ 11 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013)
(analyzing the Ohio work product rule, which applies the same standard for all common fact and opinion work product; "Therefore, unlike the federal rule and case law, it appears that Ohio has made no distinction regarding work product and opinion work product -- 'attorney work product' may be discoverable upon a showing of good cause, (1) that it is directly at issue in the case, (2) there is a compelling need for the information, and (3) the evidence cannot be obtained elsewhere. Therefore, whether work product is classified as 'opinion' or 'factual' is of no consequence for our analysis in this case. Accordingly, our review of this case is for an abuse of discretion.")

Case Date Jurisidction State Cite Checked
2013-01-01 State OH B 4/14

Chapter: 53.302

Case Name: Weitz & Luxenberg P.C. v. Georgia-Pacific LLC (In re N.Y.C. Abestos Litig.), 966 N.Y.S.2d 420, 424 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
(analyzing the crime-fraud exception, and ordering Georgia-Pacific to produce otherwise protected internal documents about studies it intended to use to support its assertions about the health effects of a Georgia-Pacific product; "Attorney work product under CPLR 3101(c), which is subject to an absolute privilege, is limited to 'documents prepared by counsel acting as such, and to materials uniquely the product of a lawyer's learning and professional skills, such as those reflecting an attorney's legal research, analysis, conclusions, legal theory or strategy.'" (citation omitted))

Case Date Jurisidction State Cite Checked
2013-01-01 State NY B 4/14

Chapter: 53.302

Case Name: Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Motley Rice, L.L.C., 2013-Ohio-3233, at ¶ 13 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013)
(analyzing the Ohio work product rule, which applies the same standard for all common fact and opinion work product; "Our review of the documents and record reflect that Sherwin-Williams has shown good cause that the documents are discoverable. The information sought to be discovered is directly at issue to Sherwin-Williams' claims against Motley Rice in the underlying lawsuit and is necessary to establish Sherwin-Williams' claims. Sherwin-Williams identified in its motion to compel that its purpose in requesting the documents and information was to discover how Motley Rice acquired, kept, used, and disseminated Sherwin-Williams' confidential and privileged property.")

Case Date Jurisidction State Cite Checked
2013-01-01 State OH B 4/14

Chapter: 53.302

Case Name: Fields v. First Liberty Ins. Corp., 954 N.Y.S.2d 427, 431 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2012)
("Materials prepared in anticipation of litigation are subject to a conditional privilege (CPLR 3101[d]). To demonstrate that this privilege is applicable, it must be shown that the material was prepared exclusively in anticipation of litigation.")

Case Date Jurisidction State Cite Checked
2012-01-01 State NY B 5/13

Chapter: 53.302

Case Name: Gama Aviation Inc. v. Sandton Capital Partners, L.P., 951 N.Y.S.2d 519, 521 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
(explaining the New York State Court work product rules; "Gama also contends that entries 316, 319, 325-26, 332-33, 356-57, 361, and 368 constitute attorney work product, which, unlike trial preparation, is subject to an absolute privilege. . . . Upon review of Gama's original and revised privilege logs, we conclude that Gama deliberately chose to use the label 'Trial Preparation Privilege' instead of 'Work Product Doctrine' in its revised log.")

Case Date Jurisidction State Cite Checked
2012-01-01 State NY B 12/13

Chapter: 53.303

Case Name: Massenburg v. Hawkins, 70 Va. Cir. 13, 14 (Va. Cir. Ct. 2005)
(in a third-party insurance context: "Because the Virginia Rules governing discovery procedure are 'substantially the same' as those in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Virginia Supreme Court gives consideration to federal cases in interpreting the Virginia Rules. See Rakes v. Fulcher, 210 Va. 542, 545, 172 S.E.2d 751, 755 (1970).")

Case Date Jurisidction State Cite Checked
2005-01-01 State VA

Chapter: 53.303

Case Name: Wilson v. Rogers, 53 Va. Cir. 280, 281 (Va. Cir. Ct. 2000)
("At the outset it should be observed that opinions of the U.S. District Court construing the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are in no way binding upon this court. However, where the Virginia rules and the federal rules are the same or essentially the same, such decisions can be helpful and should not be discarded out of hand. On the other hand, where the Virginia Supreme Court has addressed an issue, that opinion must control the decision of this court.")

Case Date Jurisidction State Cite Checked
2000-01-01 Federal VA B 3/16

Chapter: 53.303

Case Name: Smith v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., 22 Va. Cir. 348, 350 (Va. Cir. Ct. 1991)
(a railroad worker sought the production of any investigation reports prepared by the defendant; noting the paucity of discovery decisions in Virginia but indicating that Virginia courts "'use federal precedents to guide Virginia practice in the field of discovery.'" (quoting William H. Bryson, Handbook on Va. Civ. Procedure 319 (2d ed. 1989)))

Case Date Jurisidction State Cite Checked
1991-01-01 State VA B 3/16

Chapter: 53.401

Case Name: Winthrop Resources Corp. v. CommScope, Inc., Civ. A. No. 5:11-CV-172, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158413 (W.D.N.C. Nov. 7, 2014)
("'While the attorney-client privilege in this case is a creature of state law, the work-product doctrine is federally created. The work-product doctrine was developed in Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 67 S. Ct. 385, 91 L. Ed. 451 (1947) and codified in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(3).'")

Case Date Jurisidction State Cite Checked
2014-11-07 Federal NC

Chapter: 53.401

Case Name: Woodard v. Victory Records, Inc., No. 14 CV 1887, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69512 (N.D. Ill. May 21, 2014)
("Moreover, the work-product doctrine, unlike the attorney-client privilege, is a doctrine governed by federal law.")

Case Date Jurisidction State Cite Checked
2014-05-21 Federal IL

Chapter: 53.401

Case Name: Gresser v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No. CCB-12-0987, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9021, at *4 (D. Md. Jan. 24, 2014)
("Maryland law, which supplies the rule of decision, also governs the applicability of the attorney-client privilege. With respect to the work product doctrine, which is not a privilege, but a qualified immunity from discovery, federal law applies.")

Case Date Jurisidction State Cite Checked
2014-01-24 Federal MD B 6/14

Chapter: 53.401

Case Name: Aparicio v. URS Baumann, No. 3:13-cv-00281-HDM-VPC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7042, at *1 2, *2, *3, *3-4, *4, *5 (D. Nev. Jan. 21, 2014)
(inexplicably applying British Columbia law to a work product issue; "This case concerns a March 3, 2011 accident that involved plaintiff Patricia Aparicio ('plaintiff'), a Nevada resident, and defendant Urs Baumann ('defendant'), a Canadian who resides in British Columbia. According to defendant's unopposed motion, a police officer took witness statements at the scene, including defendant's statement. On March 16, 2011, defendant's insurer, Insurance Company of British Columbia ('ICBC') received correspondence from plaintiff's counsel advising that she was represented."; "On March 16, 2011, while home in British Columbia, defendant contacted ICBC. On March 22, 2011, ICBC sent its agent to defendant's farm in British Columbia. The agent took defendant's oral and written statement."; "Defendant argues that under British Columbia law, these statements are protected from discovery as work product because the doctrine or privilege is more expansive in Canada than in Nevada. . . . Defendant seeks an order declaring that the British Columbia privilege protects these statements from discovery in this lawsuit."; "Nevada generally applies the Second Restatement of Conflict of Laws's 'most significant relationship' test to tort actions, unless another, more specific section of the Second Restatement applies . . . .' [Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, § 139 (1989),] which addresses privileged communications, provides that: 'Evidence that is privileged under the local law of the state which has the most significant relationship with the communication but which is not privileged under the local law of the forum will be admitted unless there is some special reason why the forum policy favoring admission should not be given effect.'"; "In British Columbia, the work-product privilege protects records that came into existence for the dominant purpose of preparing for, advising on, or conducting litigation that was under way or in reasonable prospect at the time the record was created. . . . Non-attorneys may claim this privilege, and Canadian courts have routinely protected the type of communications at issue here from discovery."; "The state with the most significant relationship with the communication at issue is usually the state where the communication took place."; "The court finds that British Columbia has the most significant relationship to the written and oral statements that defendant gave to his insurer, ICBC. As set forth in defendant's unopposed motion, the statements took place in British Columbia between defendant, a citizen of British Columbia, and ICBC, his insurer and an insurance company in British Columbia. Moreover, the insurance contract was entered into in British Columbia, which is where defendant resides and where ICBC conducts its business.")

Case Date Jurisidction State Cite Checked
2014-01-21 Federal NV B 6/14

Chapter: 53.401

Case Name: Owens v. Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Civ. A. No. 7:12-CV-144 (HL), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171913, at *3 (M.D. Ga. Dec. 6, 2013)
("The work product doctrine is governed by federal as opposed to state law in a diversity action.")

Case Date Jurisidction State Cite Checked
2013-12-06 Federal GA B 5/14

Chapter: 53.403

Case Name:


Case Date Jurisidction State Cite Checked
2017-02-09 Federal VA

Chapter: 53.403

Case Name: Harleysville Ins. Co. v. Holding Funeral Home, Inc., Case No. 1:15cv00057, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18714 (W.D. Va. Feb. 9, 2017)
("The work-product doctrine, however, it not a privilege, but rather a qualified immunity from discovery. . . . Thus, Rule 501 does not apply, and federal law, not Virginia law, governs the applicability and waiver of the protection available under the work-product doctrine.")

Case Date Jurisidction State Cite Checked
2017-02-09 Federal VA

Chapter: 53.403

Case Name: Breslow v. Am. Sec. Ins. Co., Case No. 14-62834-CIV-GOODMAN, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21133, at *15 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 19, 2016)
("Florida law governs the attorney-client privilege in a federal diversity of citizenship case while federal law governs work product assertions in diversity actions.")

Case Date Jurisidction State Cite Checked
2016-02-19 Federal FL B 8/16

Chapter: 53.403

Case Name: In re Superior Nat'l Ins. GR v. JP Morgan Chase, Chapter 11, Case No.: 1:00-bk-14099-GM, Adv No: 1:13-ap-01099-GM, 2014 Bankr. LEXIS 3885, at *9 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2014)
("It is not clear whether state or federal law governs common interest doctrine in the same state law action if the underlying privilege is work product (which itself is governed by federal law). Some cases have stated that state law applies. . . . Other cases have applied federal law to the question of whether the common interest doctrine protected a work product privilege.")

Case Date Jurisidction State Cite Checked
2014-09-11 Federal CA

Chapter: 53.403

Case Name: Leprino Foods Co. v. DCI, Inc., Civil Action No. 13BcvB02430BRMBKMT, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87822, at *12-13 (D. Colo. June 27, 2014)
("The work-product doctrine is governed by a uniform federal standard")

Case Date Jurisidction State Cite Checked
2014-06-27 Federal CO

Chapter: 53.403

Case Name: Orchestrate HR, Inc. v. Trombetta, No. 3:13-cv-2110-P, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28483, at *4 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 27, 2014)
("[T]he issue of whether documents are exempt from discovery under the attorney work product doctrine is governed by federal law in diversity cases because work product is not a substantive privilege within the meaning of Federal Rule of Evidence 501.")

Case Date Jurisidction State Cite Checked
2014-02-27 Federal TX B 8/14

Chapter: 53.403

Case Name: City of Glendale v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., No. CV-12-380-PHX-BSB, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60711, at *33 (D. Ariz. Apr. 29, 2013)
("Because the work product doctrine is a limitation on discovery, and not an evidentiary privilege, federal law governs its application.")

Case Date Jurisidction State Cite Checked
2013-04-29 Federal AZ B 7/13

Chapter: 53.403

Case Name: Walker v. N.H. Admin. Office of the Courts, Civ. No. 11-cv-421-PB, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24506, at *7 (D.N.H. Feb. 22, 2013)
(not for publication) (analyzing documents created during an investigation of a court clerk's suicide, allegedly caused by workplace harassment; "Because this Title VII action arises under federal law, and the state law claims in the case are asserted pursuant to this court's supplemental jurisdiction, federal law governs the applicability of both the attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine.")

Case Date Jurisidction State Cite Checked
2013-02-22 Federal NH B 3/14

Chapter: 53.403

Case Name: Tudor Ins. Co. v. Stay Secure Constr. Corp., 390 F.R.D. 37, 39 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)
("While state law governs the question of attorney-client privilege in a diversity action, federal law governs the applicability of the work product doctrine.")

Case Date Jurisidction State Cite Checked
2013-01-01 Federal NY B 3/14

Chapter: 53.403

Case Name: Camacho v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 287 F.R.D. 688, 694 (N.D. Ga. 2012)
("Unlike the attorney-client privilege, the scope of protection provided by the work product doctrine is a procedural question and thus governed by federal as opposed to state law in a diversity action.")

Case Date Jurisidction State Cite Checked
2012-01-01 Federal GA B 9/13

Chapter: 53.603

Case Name: Slaven v. Great American Ins. Co., No. 13 C 1370, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33591 (N.D. Ill. March 18, 2015)
("By contrast to analysis of attorney/client privilege claims, courts sitting in diversity consider the work-product doctrine not under Illinois law, but on the basis of federal law.")

Case Date Jurisidction State Cite Checked
2015-03-18 Federal IL

Chapter: 53.603

Case Name: In re Fundamental Long Term Care, Inc., 489 B.R. 451, 473 (M.D. Fla. 2013)
(holding that a trustee's lawyer may seek files of a firm which also represented debtor's subsidiary and another company, based on the co-client privilege; "The Court, however, need not decide whether state or federal law governs application of the work product doctrine because the answer is the same in either case.")

Case Date Jurisidction State Cite Checked
2013-01-01 Federal FL B 3/14