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

ASSERT ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE TASK 12

3-3

TASK 12

Assert Attorney-Client Privilege

I. WHAT AND WHY

    

Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 389, 101 S. Ct. 677, 682 (1981) (seminal Supreme

Court case discussing application of attorney-client privilege).

B. Evidence protected by the attorney-client privilege is generally not discoverable. See FRCP 26(b)(1).

 



rule governs the application of the privilege; rather, the courts generally apply the privilege on a case-by-case

basis. In re Witness Before the Special Grand Jury 2000-2, 288 F.3d 289, 291 (7th Cir. 2002) (“Rule 501 mani-



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., 563 B.R. 909, 914 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 2016); see also Wadler v. Bio-Rad Labs., Inc., 212 F. Supp. 3d



  Wilcox v. Arpaio, 753 F.3d 872, 876 (9th Cir. 2014). Thus,





    See Dombrowski v.

Bell Atlantic Corp.  



   

make communications privileged). The client, not the attorney, holds the privilege.

 

such in the communications. See Rehling v. City of Chicago, 207 F.3d 1009 (7th Cir. 2000); United States

v. Davita, Inc  

privilege); 

Outdoor Media Group, Inc.)-



Gorman v. Polar Electro,

Inc.   

 

to prosecution of patent application); Fin. Techs. Int’l v. Smith

  

facts); compare Cavallaro v. United States  



 

on corporate merger); Veolia Water Solutions & Technologies Support v. Siemens Industry, Inc., 2014 WL



or patent agent); Nemecek v. Board of Governors of Univ. of N.C.

   

