Epstein Secrets

e ground that it does not truly express the intent of the parties. COUNSEL: Bricker & Eckler, LLP, and James J. Hughes, Ill, for appellant. Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, LLP, Jack R. Pigman, Jay A. Yurkiw and Bryan R. Faller, for appellee. JUDGES: PETREE, J. KLATT and WRIGHT, JJ., concur. OPINION

onsideration and weighing."' Farmington Country Club v. Marshall, 47 Va. App. 15, 26, 622 S.E.2d 233, 239 (2005), quoting Hungerford Mech. Corp. v. Hobson, 11 Va. App. 675, 677, 401 S.E.2d 213, 215 (1991). p12] "The probative weight to be accorded medical evidence is for the Commission to decide; and

D.Me.2001) federal courts apply federal law when ad ressing the work product doctrine, even in di- versity cases lacking any federal ques- tion); 8 Wright, Miller & Marcus, Feder- al Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d. § 2023 (2d ed. 1994) ("At least since the adoption of Rule 26(13)(3) in 1970, it has

vance of the law. Id. at 524. Judge Vinson agreed with Reichhold that the privilege was necessary to protect an organization or individual from the Hobson's choice °feistier undertaking an aggressive investigation and correcting dangerous conditions, "thereby creating a self-incriminating record that m

ted a `very lim- ited and seemingly judicious restriction,' 501 F.2d, at 151, nevertheless considered it versible *230 error. Citing United States Wright, 160 U.S.App.D.C. 57, 68, 489 .2d 1181, 1192 (1973), the court found that the Fifth Amendment prohibited the disclosure condition imposed in this

vance of the law. Id. at 524. Judge Vinson agreed with Reichhold that the privilege was necessary to protect an organization or individual from the Hobson's choice of either undertaking an aggressive investigation and correcting dangerous conditions, "thereby creating a self-incriminating record that m