§Why CasetextPricing

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Stephanou et al

RESPONSE to Motion re: 103 MOTION to Compel the Production of Documents From the Securities and Exchange Commission and The United States Attorney's Office.. Document

13 Cited authorities

  1. Upjohn Co. v. United States

    449 U.S. 383 (1981)   Cited 4,205 times   128 Legal Analyses
    Holding 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

  2. Hickman v. Taylor

    329 U.S. 495 (1947)   Cited 6,485 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 630 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. In re Grand Jury Investigation

    599 F.2d 1224 (3d Cir. 1979)   Cited 285 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that documents were covered by work product because "investigation concerned suspected criminal violations," evidence supporting illicit activity was already uncovered, and "potential for litigation was immeasurably intensified by [the company's] legal obligations to report any wrongdoing to its stockholders and to various governmental agencies."

  5. Frankenhauser v. Rizzo

    59 F.R.D. 339 (E.D. Pa. 1973)   Cited 299 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Developing the factors

  6. In re Dept. of Investigation of City of N.Y

    856 F.2d 481 (2d Cir. 1988)   Cited 173 times
    Finding law enforcement privilege applied to Mayor's letter appointing special counsel for investigation

  7. In re Sealed Case

    856 F.2d 268 (D.C. Cir. 1988)   Cited 163 times
    Holding that "[a]lthough a district court has considerable leeway in weighing the different factors, the failure to balance at all requires remand"

  8. Black v. Sheraton Corp. of America

    564 F.2d 531 (D.C. Cir. 1977)   Cited 150 times
    Holding that invasion of privacy claim was not barred by statute

  9. S.E.C. v. Cavanagh

    1 F. Supp. 2d 337 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)   Cited 50 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding that two events were "integrated in the minds of their architects"

  10. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. Anuradha D. SAAD, Richard P. Adelson, David J. Cammarata, Peter Torres, Robert McKie, Karin Gardner, and Kenneth Jugan, Defendants.

    229 F.R.D. 90 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)   Cited 12 times
    Describing motions to stay in such situations as "bizarre" given "that the U.S. Attorney's Office, having closely coordinated with the SEC in bringing simultaneous civil and criminal actions against some hapless defendant, should then wish to be relieved of the consequences that will flow if the two actions proceed simultaneously."

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

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 26   Cited 94,538 times   650 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

  12. Section 3500 - Demands for production of statements and reports of witnesses

    18 U.S.C. § 3500   Cited 5,353 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Requiring the government to produce "any statement," including testimony provided before the grand jury, only after the witness has testified on direct examination at trial