Upjohn Co. v. United States
449 U.S. 383 (1981) Cited 4,264 times 131 Legal AnalysesHolding that communications between corporate counsel and a corporation's employees made for the purpose of rendering legal advice are protected by the attorney-client privilege
Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
542 U.S. 241 (2004) Cited 1,202 times 108 Legal AnalysesHolding that discovery is available for use in proceedings "within reasonable contemplation"
Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
331 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2003) Cited 3,458 timesHolding that the Phillips exception is "expressly limited to the status of materials . . . attached to a non-dispositive motion"
Hickman v. Taylor
329 U.S. 495 (1947) Cited 6,552 times 31 Legal AnalysesHolding 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”
Shelton v. Am. Motors Corp.
805 F.2d 1323 (8th Cir. 1986) Cited 724 times 9 Legal AnalysesHolding that an attempt to depose an attorney about documents her client possessed was protected by the work product privilege, as this knowledge would reflect her judgment as an attorney in identifying, examining, and selecting from her client's voluminous files those documents on which she relied in preparing her client's defense
Schmitz v. Lifshitz
376 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2004) Cited 332 timesHolding that the district court had not abused its discretion in denying a request for discovery under 1782 where district court was "faced with specific requests from the German Ministry of Justice and the Bonn Prosecutor to deny petitioners the discovery they sought at time"
Asea, Inc. v. S. Pac. Transp. Co.
669 F.2d 1242 (9th Cir. 1981) Cited 469 timesHolding that Rule 36 does not create a per se rule requiring a district court to permit withdrawal or amendment of an admission which relates to an important or dispositive matter
United States v. ChevronTexaco Corp.
241 F. Supp. 2d 1065 (N.D. Cal. 2002) Cited 149 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that party asserting work product doctrine bears burden of establishing that the privilege applies
Safeco of America v. Rawstron
181 F.R.D. 441 (C.D. Cal. 1998) Cited 162 timesHolding interrogatory that seeks facts about multiple requests for admissions should be counted as a separate interrogatory for each request.
In re Application of Microsoft Corporation
428 F. Supp. 2d 188 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) Cited 104 times 1 Legal AnalysesFinding second Intel factor “cuts sharply against” a request where “the [European] Commission has explicitly stated that it opposes the discovery sought by Microsoft and is not receptive to U.S. judicial assistance,” and that “[g]ranting discovery in the face of opposition from the foreign tribunal would undermine the spirit and purpose of the statute by discouraging...other foreign tribunals from heeding similar sovereignty concerns posited by our governmental authorities to foreign courts.”
Rule 1 - Scope and Purpose
Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 Cited 15,441 times 49 Legal AnalysesRecognizing the federal rules of civil procedure should be employed to promote the "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding"
Section 1782 - Assistance to foreign and international tribunals and to litigants before such tribunals
28 U.S.C. § 1782 Cited 2,168 times 247 Legal AnalysesIn § 1782, Congress has expressly authorized federal courts to order discovery from domestic persons in aid of foreign proceedings like the ongoing Polish prosecution.