Spin Master Ltd. et al v. Bureau Veritas S.A. et al
MEMORANDUM in Opposition re MOTION for Protective Order Defendant Eurofins Product Safety Labs, Inc.'s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiff Spin Master Ltd.'s Motion for a Protective Order and Spin Master Ltd.'s and Ronald Y. Rothstein's Amended Motion to Quash Non-Party Subpoena
449 U.S. 383 (1981) Cited 4,275 times 131 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
Holding 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
Rejecting the Shelton rule and instead applying a "flexible approach" that "takes into consideration all of the relevant facts and circumstances" including "the need to depose the lawyer, the lawyer's role in connection with the matter on which discovery is sought and in relation to the pending litigation, the risk of encountering privilege and work-product issues, and the extent of discovery already conducted"
Holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a protective order to prevent discovery material obtained by a debtor in a collection action from being used in related litigation in another country in which the debtor claimed that an individual negotiated high risk loans on behalf of debtor
Holding that the trial judge's comments in an interview did not require him to recuse himself because "he only restated what he had been saying in open court for the past few years and did not discuss the details of remedy implementation"
Rejecting party's request to depose opposing counsel and finding "much, if not all, of the information defendants claim to be seeking can be acquired from [the defendant] himself and/or representatives of [the plaintiff]"
Affording confidentiality to communications between a company's employees and in-house counsel containing copies of the outside counsel's communications “providing legal opinions and conveying legal advice.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 30 Cited 16,617 times 132 Legal Analyses
Upholding a district court's decision not to consider the plaintiff's deposition errata sheets in opposition to a motion for summary judgment when they were untimely