Epstein Secrets

y or for a party to the subsequent litigation," Underwriters Ins. Co. Atlanta Gas Light Co., 248 F.R.D. 663,668 (N.D. Ga. 2008). These cases rely on the Supreme Court's dicta in Federal Trade Communication I. Grolier, Inc., that "the literal language of [Rule 26(b)(3)] protects materials prepared for ars litigation

me older cases took the position that the work-product immunity applied only to documents prepared in direct relation to the case at bar," 8 Wright, Miller & Marcus, Fed. Prac. & Fed. P. § 2024, p. 518 (3d ed. 2010), more recent cases "have generally found that documents produced in anticipation of litigating o

rgue that the work-product privilege is unavailable for a number of reasons. (DE 265 at 6, 8, 14-16). The work-product doctrine traces its roots to the Supreme Court's recognition that "it is essential that a lawyer work with a certain r 161 degree of privacy, free from unnecessary intrusion by opposing parties an

me older cases took the position that the work-product immunity applied only to documents prepared in direct relation to the case at bar," 8 Wright, Miller & Marcus, Fed. Prac. & Fed. P. § 2024, p. 518 (3d ed. 2010), more recent cases "have generally found that documents produced in anticipation of litigating o

for a party to the subsequent litigation," Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Atlanta Gas Light Co., 248 F.R.D. 663, 668 (N.D. Ga. 2008). These cases rely on the Supreme Court's dicta in Federal Trade Communication v. Grolier, Inc., that "the literal language of [Rule 26(bX3)] protects materials prepared for ae litigation o

me older cases took the position that the work-product immunity applied only to documents prepared in direct relation to the case at bar," 8 Wright, Miller & Marcus, Fed. Prac. & Fed. P. § 2024, p. 518 (3d ed. 2010), more recent cases "have generally found that documents produced in anticipation of litigating o

for a party to the subsequent litigation," Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Atlanta Gas Light Co., 248 F.R.D. 663, 668 (N.D. Ga. 2008). These cases rely on the Supreme Court's dicta in Federal Trade Communication v. Grolier, Inc., that "the literal language of [Rule 26(b)(3)] protects materials prepared for ay litigation o

me older cases took the position that the work-product immunity applied only to documents prepared in direct relation to the case at bar," 8 Wright, Miller & Marcus, Fed. Prac. & Fed. P. § 2024, p. 518 (3d ed. 2010), more recent cases "have generally found that documents produced in anticipation of litigating o

r for a party to the subsequent litigation," Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Atlanta Gas Light Co., 248 F.R.D. 663,668 (N.D. Ga. 2008). These cases rely on the Supreme Court's dicta in Federal Trade Communication v. Grolier, Inc., that "the literal language of [Rule 26(b)(3)] protects materials prepared for ars litigation

me older cases took the position that the work-product immunity applied only to documents prepared in direct relation to the case at bar," 8 Wright, Miller & Marcus, Fed. Prac. & Fed. P. § 2024, p. 518 (3d ed. 2010), more recent cases "have generally found that documents produced in anticipation of litigating o

tlement agreement constituted Page 10 an "implied waiver" of this privilege. Id at 622-26. The court began its analysis with a con- sideration of the Supreme Court's decision in Nobles, noting that that decision held that an attempt to make testimonial use of work product resulted in an implied waiver of the p

rn.aspx?rs=WLW11.07&pbc=BC6E23F9&destin... 9/26/2011 EFTA00177913 183 F.R.D. 458, 51 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 35 (Cite as: 183 F.R.D. 458) 8A Wright, Miller & Marcus, Fed- eral Practice and Procedure § 2113 (2d ed.1994). There is contrary ( au- thority, however. ee, e.g. Omaha Pub. Power Dist. . Foster Wheeler