U.S. v. Bilzerian
926 F.2d 1285 (2d Cir. 1991) Cited 878 times 3 Legal AnalysesHolding that while expert "may opine on an issue of fact within the jury's province," he "may not give testimony stating ultimate legal conclusions based on those facts"
Reynolds v. Bulow
481 U.S. 1015 (1987) Cited 259 timesHolding "operator" of a ship liable under the Jones Act despite fact that another defendant had admitted it was the "owner"
Von Bulow by Auersperg v. Von Bulow
811 F.2d 136 (2d Cir. 1987) Cited 468 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that "the burden of establishing all the essential elements" of a privilege claim is not met "by mere conclusory or ipse dixit assertions"
Mercator Corp. v. United States
318 F.3d 379 (2d Cir. 2002) Cited 224 timesHolding that the burden of proof lies on the party asserting the protection of the work product doctrine
Matter of Priest v. Hennessy
51 N.Y.2d 62 (N.Y. 1980) Cited 370 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that no attorney-client relationship had been shown to exist between attorneys and third parties who had paid for the representation of certain of the attorneys' clients
U.S. v. Ackert
169 F.3d 136 (2d Cir. 1999) Cited 124 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that the privilege was destroyed because the third party agent was not acting "as a translator or interpreter of client communications"
Nxivm Corp. v. O'Hara
241 F.R.D. 109 (N.D.N.Y. 2007) Cited 55 timesFinding exception inapplicable where moving party failed to demonstrate that "particular communication or document at issue" used in furtherance of contemplated or ongoing fraud
In re Rivastigmine Patent Litigation
237 F.R.D. 69 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) Cited 51 times 2 Legal AnalysesProving "and protecting the privileged status of documents . . . requires, among other things, drafting them in such a way that a court will be able assess the applicability of a privilege claim even when a dispute arises . . . decades after the communication."
Nassau County Grand Jury
4 N.Y.3d 665 (N.Y. 2005) Cited 52 times 1 Legal Analyses60. Argued March 29, 2005. Decided May 3, 2005. Appeal, on constitutional grounds, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, entered May 24, 2004. The Appellate Division affirmed an order of the Nassau County Court (Jeffrey S. Brown, J.; op 1 Misc 3d 902[A], 2003 NY Slip Op 51469[U]), which had denied petitioners' application pursuant to CPLR 2304 to quash or limit a grand jury subpoena duces tecum. Matter of Nassau County Grand Jury Subpoena
Securities & Exchange Commission v. Yorkville Advisors, LLC
12 Civ. 7728 (GBD)(HBP) (S.D.N.Y. May. 27, 2014) Cited 31 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that privilege logs were inadequate because they provided insufficient information
Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 Cited 94,916 times 653 Legal AnalysesAdopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37
Rule 501 - Privilege in General
Fed. R. Evid. 501 Cited 4,130 times 21 Legal AnalysesRecognizing that "in a civil case, state law governs privilege regarding a claim or defense for which state law supplies the rule of decision"