15 Cited authorities

United States v. Nobles
422 U.S. 225 (1975) Cited 2,134 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that counsel's attempt to make testimonial use of work product materials at criminal trial waived protection
United States v. El Paso Co.
682 F.2d 530 (5th Cir. 1982) Cited 398 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding party made blanket assertion of privilege as to all documents and thus failed to particularize its assertion as to any specific document
Hodges, Grant Kaufmann v. U.S. Gov't
768 F.2d 719 (5th Cir. 1985) Cited 287 times
Holding that the disclosure of privileged communications to a third-party generally eliminates the confidentiality of the attorney-client privilege and serves to waive the attorney-client privilege
In re Santa Fe Int'l Corp.
272 F.3d 705 (5th Cir. 2001) Cited 168 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the "party asserting a privilege exemption from discovery bears the burden of demonstrating its applicability"
In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum
112 F.3d 910 (8th Cir. 1997) Cited 164 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding no common interest when First Lady had personal legal interest in criminal investigation, while White House had only political interest, so investigation "can have no legal, factual, or even strategic effect on the White House"
In re Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Co.
214 F.3d 586 (5th Cir. 2000) Cited 149 times
Holding that the district court correctly followed Fifth Circuit precedent in applying the "primary purpose" test to determine whether the work-product privilege applied
U.S. v. Neal
27 F.3d 1035 (5th Cir. 1994) Cited 173 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a more than 150-volume trial transcript containing over 300 errors was not "unreasonably incomplete or substantially inaccurate" when these errors "were primarily of a typographical nature"
U.S. v. Robinson
121 F.3d 971 (5th Cir. 1997) Cited 113 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a party invoking the attorney-client privilege bears the burden of demonstrating its applicability and must show: that he made a confidential communication; to a lawyer or his subordinate; for the primary purpose of securing either a legal opinion or legal services, or assistance in some legal proceeding
King v. Univ. Healthcare Sys
645 F.3d 713 (5th Cir. 2011) Cited 72 times 2 Legal Analyses
Finding district court did not err in refusing to conduct a full in camera review of documents listed on privilege log when log set forth sufficient descriptions and plaintiff “offered only speculation that the e-mails are not covered by privilege because they were made for a purpose other than obtaining legal advice.”
United States v. Nelson
732 F.3d 504 (5th Cir. 2013) Cited 52 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the defendant, who was a former mayor, shared a common purpose with another mayor, to recruit a waste cleaning business to their towns

Google Inc. v. Hood

15 Cited authorities

Holding that counsel's attempt to make testimonial use of work product materials at criminal trial waived protection

Holding party made blanket assertion of privilege as to all documents and thus failed to particularize its assertion as to any specific document

Holding that the disclosure of privileged communications to a third-party generally eliminates the confidentiality of the attorney-client privilege and serves to waive the attorney-client privilege

Holding that the "party asserting a privilege exemption from discovery bears the burden of demonstrating its applicability"

Holding no common interest when First Lady had personal legal interest in criminal investigation, while White House had only political interest, so investigation "can have no legal, factual, or even strategic effect on the White House"

Holding that the district court correctly followed Fifth Circuit precedent in applying the "primary purpose" test to determine whether the work-product privilege applied

Holding that a more than 150-volume trial transcript containing over 300 errors was not "unreasonably incomplete or substantially inaccurate" when these errors "were primarily of a typographical nature"

Holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the defendant, who was a former mayor, shared a common purpose with another mayor, to recruit a waste cleaning business to their towns