U.S. v. Farley
11 F.3d 1385 (7th Cir. 1993) Cited 153 timesHolding a "conclusory affidavit asserting that any factual portion of the document cannot be separated from the evaluative portion" was insufficient to assert the bank examination privilege and collecting cases to note that often an in camera inspection is common, but not necessary, for determining when the privilege applies
United States v. Navistar Int'l Corp.
236 F. Supp. 3d 1049 (N.D. Ill. 2017)No. 15 cv 6143 02-22-2017 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL CORP., and Navistar, Inc., Defendants. Abigail Andre, U.S. Dept. of Justice/ENRD/EES, Denver, CO, Deanna J. Chang, U.S. Department of Justice c/o Regional Solicitors Office, Doi, Portland, OR, Keith Taketo Tashima, U.S. Dept. of Justice/Environment & Natural Resources Division, Patrick B. Bryan, Sean Kevin Carman, U.S. Department of Justice, Peter C. Krzywicki, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff. Cary R. Perlman,
Sec. Exch. Com'n v. National Student Mktg
538 F.2d 404 (D.C. Cir. 1976) Cited 9 timesNos. 75-1700 to 75-1702. Argued December 6, 1975. Decided May 17, 1976. Rehearing Denied August 11, 1976. Daniel A. Rezneck, Washington, D.C., with whom Milton V. Freeman, Abe Krash and Lawrence A. Schneider, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for appellants in No. 75-1700. Steven M. Schatz, New York City, also entered an appearance for appellants in No. 75-1700. James A. Hourihan, Washington, D.C., with whom Sherwin J. Markman, Martin Michaelson and Dennis J. Whittlesey, Washington, D.C., were