§Why CasetextPricing

Stewart Title Guaranty Company v. Credit Suisse

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting in part and reserving in part 61 Motion to Compel. Within thirty

12 Cited authorities

  1. Upjohn Co. v. United States

    449 U.S. 383 (1981)   Cited 4,209 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. In re Grand Jury Subpoena

    357 F.3d 900 (9th Cir. 2003)   Cited 354 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a document is eligible for work-product protection if it "can be fairly said to have been prepared or obtained because of the prospect of litigation"

  3. Holmgren v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

    976 F.2d 573 (9th Cir. 1992)   Cited 276 times
    Holding that work product "may be discovered and admitted when mental impressions are at issue in a case and the need for the material is compelling"

  4. U.S. v. Chen

    99 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1996)   Cited 215 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the government's error in submitting potentially privileged material with an ex parte application for Zolin crime-fraud determination was harmless because the district judge explicitly disregarded the allegedly privileged materials

  5. In re Excel Innovations

    502 F.3d 1086 (9th Cir. 2007)   Cited 156 times
    Holding that an injunction under § 105 requires "a reasonable likelihood of a successful reorganization"

  6. Cedell v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Wash.

    176 Wn. 2d 686 (Wash. 2013)   Cited 117 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding plaintiffs alleging bad faith in insurance disputes are entitled to discovery of confidential and sometimes privileged material

  7. Evanston Insurance v. OEA, Inc.

    566 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2009)   Cited 54 times
    In Evanston Insurance Company v. OEA, Inc., 566 F.3d 915, 921 (9th Cir. 2009), we explained that "California cases uniformly have interpreted the `vesting' requirement as being satisfied at the time that the amount of damages become certain or capable of being made certain, not the time liability to pay those amounts is determined."

  8. Barry v. USAA

    98 Wn. App. 199 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 36 times
    Finding that while allegations of bad faith "may be sufficiently supported by the record to establish a prima facie case of bad faith insurance ..., they do not, in and of themselves, constitute a good faith belief that [the insurer] committed fraud."

  9. IVY HOTEL SAN DIEGO, LLC v. HOUSTON CASUALTY CO.

    Civil No. 10cv2183-L (BGS) (S.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2011)   Cited 13 times
    Holding that compelling need existed for producing work product in bad faith case where information was in "exclusive control" of insurer and insured had "no other way to probe reasons [insurer] denied [the insured's] claim"

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

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 26   Cited 94,784 times   651 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

  11. Rule 501 - Privilege in General

    Fed. R. Evid. 501   Cited 4,130 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that "in a civil case, state law governs privilege regarding a claim or defense for which state law supplies the rule of decision"

  12. Rule 502 - Lawyer-client privilege

    Idaho R. Evid. 502   Cited 25 times

    (a)Definitions. As used in this rule: (1) Client. A "client" is a person, public officer, or corporation, association, or other organization or entity, either public or private, who is rendered professional legal services by a lawyer, or who consults a lawyer with a view to obtaining professional legal services from the lawyer. (2) Representative of the client. A "representative of the client" is one having authority to obtain professional legal services, or an employee of the client who is authorized