Privilege and work product
Author | William M. Audet/Kimberly A. Fanady/David Ling Y. Kuang |
Pages | 87-130 |
PRIVILEGE AND
WORK PRODUCT
3-1
CHAPTER 3:
PRIVILEGE AND
WORK PRODUCT
TASKS
Task 12 Assert Attorney-Client Privilege
Task 13 Assert Work Product Immunity
Task 14 Assert Other Privileges
Task 15 Demand a Privilege Log
Task 16 Compile a Privilege Log
Task 17 Challenge a Privilege Log
Task 18 Oppose Challenge to a Privilege Log
FORMS
Form 5 Privilege Log
PRIVILEGE AND
WORK PRODUCT
(This page intentionally left blank.)
PRIVILEGE AND
WORK PRODUCT
3-3 Assert Attorney-Client Privilege Task 12
TASK 12
Assert Attorney-Client Privilege
I. WHAT AND WHY
Upjohn Co. v. United States
B. Evidence protected by the attorney-client privilege is generally not discoverable. See FRCP 26(b)(1).
a case-by-case basis. In re Witness Before the Special Grand Jury 2000-2, 288 F.3d 289, 291 (7th Cir. 2002)
In re Taproot Sys.
but see United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation
Doe v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee, 772 F.3d 437, 440
-
S. Fifth Towers, LLC v. Aspen Ins. UK, Ltd.
In re Lake Lotawana Cmty. Improvement
Dist. see also Wadler v. Bio-Rad Labs., Inc.
Wilcox v. Arpaio
See Dombrowski v.
Bell Atlantic Corp.
See Rehling v. City of ChicagoUnited States
v. Davita, Inc
State Outdoor Media Group, Inc.)
Gorman v. Polar
Electro, Inc.
compare Cavallaro v. United States, 284 F.3d 236 (1st Cir.
Veolia Water Solutions & Technologies Support
v. Siemens Industry, Inc
Nemecek v. Board of Governors of Univ. of
N.C.
To continue reading
Request your trial