§Why CasetextPricing

Scottsdale Insurance Company v. CNC Technologies LLC et al

MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION to Compel Documents from Steven Erigero of Ropers, Majeski, Kohn, Bentley, PC 83

15 Cited authorities

  1. United States v. Nobles

    422 U.S. 225 (1975)   Cited 2,136 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that counsel's attempt to make testimonial use of work product materials at criminal trial waived protection

  2. Hickman v. Taylor

    329 U.S. 495 (1947)   Cited 6,496 times   31 Legal Analyses
    Holding in the context of the work product privilege that the adversary system requires a party's attorney be permitted to “assemble information, sift what he considers to be the relevant from the irrelevant facts, prepare his legal theories and plan his strategy without undue and needless interference”

  3. U.S. v. Adlman

    134 F.3d 1194 (2d Cir. 1998)   Cited 632 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that documents are protected when "the document can fairly be said to have been prepared or obtained because of the prospect of litigation"

  4. Tenn. Laborers Health & Welfare Fund v. Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp.

    293 F.3d 289 (6th Cir. 2002)   Cited 246 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that confidentiality agreement with the government did not preserve company's work product or attorney-client privilege with respect to the documents disclosed to the government

  5. United States v. Deloitte LLP

    610 F.3d 129 (D.C. Cir. 2010)   Cited 181 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that there was no waiver if disclosed to auditor

  6. Holmgren v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

    976 F.2d 573 (9th Cir. 1992)   Cited 277 times
    Holding that work product "may be discovered and admitted when mental impressions are at issue in a case and the need for the material is compelling"

  7. In re Murphy

    560 F.2d 326 (8th Cir. 1977)   Cited 276 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that materials prepared for patent settlement retained work product protection in subsequent antitrust litigation

  8. Appleton Papers, Inc. v. Envtl. Prot. Agency

    702 F.3d 1018 (7th Cir. 2012)   Cited 98 times
    Holding that a party waived work-product protection when it cited figures from reports in briefs filed with the court

  9. Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharms., Inc.

    778 F.3d 142 (D.C. Cir. 2015)   Cited 91 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that records qualify for protection under the attorney work-product privilege when "in light of the nature of the document and the factual situation in the particular case, the document can fairly be said to have been prepared or obtained because of the prospect of litigation" (quoting United States v. Deloitte LLP , 610 F.3d 129, 137 (D.C. Cir. 2010) )

  10. In re Antitrust Grand Jury

    805 F.2d 155 (6th Cir. 1986)   Cited 203 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding attorney work product is ordinarily protected from discovery by the opposing party

  11. Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 26   Cited 94,988 times   653 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

  12. Section 2860 - Duty of insurer to provide independent counsel to insured

    Cal. Civ. Code § 2860   Cited 274 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Implementing Cumis rule