Back to Network
4
Shared Docs
4
Same-Page
4 / 4
Mentions
Document Mentions (4 shared documents)
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
nduct" does not rise to the level of conduct that triggers an exception to the work product doctrine. See, e.g. In re Sealed Case 754 F.2d 395, 401 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (exception to attorney-client privilege applied where alleged wrongdoing included "perjured testimony, document destruction, and similar mis
65 at 13). Second, they argue that the doctrine does not apply because the conduct of those prosecutors is a "central issue" in this case. a at 15). The Courts finds these arguments unavailing. First, Petitioners argue that the "work product doctrine does not apply to claims advanced by crime victims that
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
uct" does not rise to the level of conduct that triggers an exception to the work product doctrine. See, e.g., In re Sealed Case, 754 F.2d 395, 401 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (exception to attorney-client privilege applied where alleged wrongdoing included "perjured testimony, document destruction, and similar mis
5 at 13). Second, they argue that the doctrine does not apply because the conduct of those prosecutors is a "central issue" in this case. (1 at 15). The Courts finds these arguments unavailing. First, Petitioners argue that the "work product doctrine does not apply to claims advanced by crime victims that
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
uct" does not rise to the level of conduct that triggers an exception to the work product doctrine. See, e.g., In re Sealed Case, 754 F.2d 395, 401 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (exception to attorney-client privilege applied where alleged wrongdoing included "perjured testimony, document destruction, and similar mis
at 13). Second, they argue that the doctrine does not apply because the conduct of those prosecutors is a "central issue" in this case. (a. at 15). The Courts finds these arguments unavailing. First, Petitioners argue that the "work product doctrine does not apply to claims advanced by crime victims that
Sponsored
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
nduct" does not rise to the level of conduct that triggers an exception to the work product doctrine. See, e.g. In re Sealed Case 754 F.2d 395, 401 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (exception to attorney-client privilege applied where alleged wrongdoing included "perjured testimony, document destruction, and similar mis
65 at 13). Second, they argue that the doctrine does not apply because the conduct of those prosecutors is a "central issue" in this case. a at 15). The Courts finds these arguments unavailing. First, Petitioners argue that the "work product doctrine does not apply to claims advanced by crime victims that
Sponsored
Mutual Connections (61)
Entities connected to both D.C. Cir and The Courts
Jeffrey Epstein
PERSON45 w/ D.C.·4 w/ The
United States
LOCATION40 w/ D.C.·4 w/ The
George W. Bush
PERSON21 w/ D.C.·4 w/ The
the Southern District
LOCATION20 w/ D.C.·4 w/ The
Kenneth Marra
PERSON19 w/ D.C.·4 w/ The
Supreme Court
ORGANIZATION19 w/ D.C.·4 w/ The
JD
Jane Doe
PERSON17 w/ D.C.·3 w/ The
ET
Emmy Taylor
PERSON10 w/ D.C.·4 w/ The
HI
Hickman
PERSON8 w/ D.C.·4 w/ The
Michael Jackson
PERSON7 w/ D.C.·4 w/ The
Michael Douglas
PERSON7 w/ D.C.·4 w/ The
WR
Wright
PERSON7 w/ D.C.·4 w/ The
WA
Wayte
PERSON7 w/ D.C.·4 w/ The
The Eleventh Circuit
ORGANIZATION7 w/ D.C.·4 w/ The
the Federal Rules of Civil
ORGANIZATION7 w/ D.C.·4 w/ The
Armstrong
PERSON7 w/ D.C.·3 w/ The
Douglas Oil Co.
ORGANIZATION6 w/ D.C.·4 w/ The
Main Justice
ORGANIZATION6 w/ D.C.·4 w/ The
ST
Subpoena Duces Tecum
PERSON6 w/ D.C.·4 w/ The
the Executive Office's
ORGANIZATION5 w/ D.C.·4 w/ The