Document Mentions (4 shared documents)

EFTA00210140

2 mentions1 same-page

Page ?Same page

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 one case remain prot

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

EFTA02335898

2 mentions1 same-page

Page ?Same page

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

EFTA00086375_sub_001 - EFTA00086375_100

2 mentions1 same-page

Page ?Same page

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

Mutual Connections (61)

Entities connected to both Prac. & Fed and The Courts

Kenneth Marra

Jeffrey Epstein

Jane Doe

the Southern District

LOCATION

6 w/ Prac.·4 w/ The

Michael Douglas