Attorney-Client Privilege and Deposition Preparation of Former Employees
|
|
- Beatrix Ellis
- 8 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 The Attorney-Client Privilege Attorney-Client Privilege and Deposition Preparation of Former Employees Meloney Cargil Perry I. Introduction Representing corporations in litigation on a regular basis probably makes one no stranger to dealing with former employees. Former employees often possess information that is relevant, if not critical, to the outcome of a case. It is therefore common for corporate counsel to meet with former employees to discover what they know. And it is also common for corporate counsel to meet with former employees to prepare them for a deposition. Many corporate lawyers just assume that if they meet with a former employee about an issue that arose during the former employee s employment, any communications with the former employee are privileged. But this is not necessarily the case. Former employees are just that: former employees. Absent a consulting or contractual relationship with the corporation, former employees are no longer agents of the corporation, and they no longer act at the direction of management. This reality adds uncertainty to an area of law already permeated by a great deal of uncertainty. Submitted by the author on behalf of the FDCC Insurance Industry Section. The analysis, conclusions, and opinions expressed in these materials do not necessarily reflect the position of the law firm, Baker & McKenzie LLP, or its clients, and should not be construed as legal advice. The author acknowledges the contributions of Brandon P. Long, a former associate with the firm, who assisted in the preparation of this article. Brandon is now an associate with McAfee & Taft, a professional corporation, Tenth Floor, Two Leadership Square, 211 N. Robinson, Oklahoma City, OK 73102, (405) (brandon.long@ mcafeetaft.com). 303
2 FDCC Quarterly/Spring 2007 Meloney Cargil Perry is a partner with Baker & McKenzie in Dallas where she currently represents insurance companies in multiple jurisdictions. Her practice focuses on insurance class-action and bad-faith litigation. She earned her B.A. in English from Louisiana State University Shreveport and her J.D., cum laude, from Southern Methodist University. Even the most elementary legal research regarding the attorney-client privilege will quickly disclose the United States Supreme Court s opinion in Upjohn Co. v. United States, 1 and numerous articles discussing the oft-cited point that the attorney-client privilege is difficult to apply in the corporate context. Since a corporation is an artificial creature of the law, and not an individual, 2 a corporation can only speak through people. Unfortunately, however, the Supreme Court s opinion in Upjohn only addressed the already-difficult issue of whether communications with a current employee are privileged. The Court specifically declined to decide whether communications with a former employee are privileged much less, whether communications made for the purpose of preparing a former employee for a deposition are privileged. 3 Thus, the issue remains open. This article will consider that issue and analyze the case law that has addressed whether pre-deposition communications with a former employee are protected by the attorney-client privilege. As discussed below, the safe practice for any corporate attorney who needs to prepare a former employee for a deposition is to begin with the conservative and perhaps even incorrect assumption (at least in some jurisdictions) that everything said to the former employee will be discoverable U.S. 383 (1981). 2 Id. at Id. at 394 n
3 The Attorney-Client Privilege II. The Attorney-Client Privilege and Corporations 4 All attorneys possess some basic understanding about what is protected by the attorney-client privilege. Generally, it protects communications between an attorney and a client involving legal advice. The privilege applies where there is (1) [a] communication; (2) made between privileged persons; (3) in confidence; (4) for the purpose of seeking, obtaining, or providing legal assistance to the client. 5 Corporations, like individuals, can rely on the privilege when these elements are satisfied. 6 But the difficult question with corporate and other organizational clients is which individuals within the organization can speak on behalf of the organization to the attorney so that the privilege applies to their communications. 7 For years, courts have applied a variety of tests to determine whether an individual within an organization could speak on behalf of the organization so that the communication was privileged. In that regard, courts generally have applied one of the following tests: (1) the control group test; (2) the subject matter test; or (3) some variation of (1) and (2). 8 The control group test limits the privilege to communications from persons in the organization who have authority to mold organizational policy or to take action in accordance with the lawyer s advice. 9 By contrast, the subject matter test extends the privilege to communications with any lower-echelon employee or agent so long as the communication relates to the subject matter of the representation. 10 In Upjohn, 11 the Supreme Court rejected the control group test. Although the Court did not adopt a specific test, the Court implied that communications with a corporate employee are protected by the attorney-client privilege if the communications: (1) were made to the corporate counsel, acting as such; (2) were made at the direction of corporate superiors for the purpose of securing legal advice from counsel; (3) concerned matters within the scope 4 When a federal question is being litigated in the federal courts, the attorney-client privilege is a question of federal common law. Edna Selan Epstein, The Attorney-Client Privilege and the Work-Product Doctrine 19 (ABA 4th ed. 2001) [hereinafter Epstein]. In state-court cases and diversity cases that are filed in federal court, however, the attorney-client privilege is controlled by the forum state s law. Id. at 22; see also Fed. R. Evid. 501 (stating the general rule with respect to privileges). Unless otherwise indicated, this article applies and discusses the federal common law. 5 Restatement (Third) of The Law Governing Lawyers 68 (2000). 6 See Upjohn, 449 U.S. at (assuming that the privilege applies when the client is a corporation). 7 Epstein, supra note 4, at See id. 9 Restatement (Third) of The Law Governing Lawyers 73, cmt. d (2000). 10 Id U.S
4 FDCC Quarterly/Spring 2007 of the employees corporate duties; and if (4) the employees were sufficiently aware that they were being questioned so that the corporation could obtain legal advice. 12 The Court s decision, however, left several questions unresolved, including the question of whether communications between counsel and former employees are included within the privilege. 13 While the majority opinion in Upjohn declined to address the issue, Chief Justice Warren Burger s concurring opinion reflected his belief that the privilege should extend to communications with former employees: [A] communication is privileged at least when, as here, an employee or former employee speaks at the direction of the management with an attorney regarding conduct or proposed conduct within the scope of employment. 14 Despite Justice Burger s opinion, courts following and/or relying on Upjohn have reached varying conclusions and have adopted diverse approaches to resolve the issue. III. Interviewing a Former Employee One court has observed that: [v]irtually all courts hold that communications between company counsel and former company employees are privileged if they concern information obtained during the course of employment. 15 This statement, however, may be overbroad to some extent. The matter about which virtually all courts appear to agree is that communications that were privileged during employment do not lose their privileged status just because an employee leaves the company. 16 But what about communications that occur after employment terminates? Some courts extend the privilege to post-employment communications with former employees, while others have expressed concerns regarding such an extension Id. at Id. at 394 n Id. at 403 (Burger, C.J., concurring) (emphasis added). 15 Export-Import Bank of the U.S. v. Asia Pulp & Paper Co., 232 F.R.D. 103, 112 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (citing Surles v. Air France, No. 00-Civ.-5004, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10048, at *17-18 (S.D.N.Y. July 19, 2001)). 16 See Epstein, supra note 4, at 119 ( Whatever communications were privileged communications during the course of the former employee s employment should clearly remain privileged. No reason exists to terminate the privilege along with the termination of the employment. ); see also Amarin Plastics, Inc. v. Md. Cup Corp., 116 F.R.D. 36, 41 (D. Mass. 1987) (stating that [i]n some circumstances, the communications between a former employee and a corporate party s counsel may be privileged. ) (emphasis added). 17 See Philip F. Ackerman et al., Attorney-Client Privilege in Civil Litigation, Protecting and Defending Confidentiality 230 (Vincent S. Walkowiak ed., A.B.A. 3d ed. 2004) (collecting cases). 306
5 The Attorney-Client Privilege In the case of In re Allen, 18 the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals extended the attorneyclient privilege to protect the notes and summaries prepared by an agency s attorney while interviewing a former employee. 19 The Ninth Circuit, in the matter of In re Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings in Petroleum Products Antitrust Litigation, 20 emphasized that the attorney-client privilege covers communications with former employees because [f]ormer employees, as well as current employees, may possess the relevant information needed by corporate counsel to advise the client with respect to actual or potential difficulties, and because the attorney-client privilege is served by the certainty that conversations between the attorney and client will remain privileged after the employee leaves. 21 Additionally, in Miramar Construction Co. v. Home Depot, Inc., 22 the federal district court in Puerto Rico held that conversations between counsel and a former employee were protected by the attorney-client privilege insofar as the subject matter of the conversations concerned the duties of the former employee during his tenure with the corporation. 23 Other courts, however, have reached exactly the opposite conclusion. For example, in Clark Equipment Co. v. Lift Parts Manufacturing Co., 24 the federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois concluded that the Supreme Court s determination in Upjohn does not support extending the privilege to former employees. Since former employees are not the client, their willingness to provide information is unrelated to the directions of their former supervisors, they have no duty to their former employers to provide information, and it is impossible to distinguish a former employee from other third parties. 25 In Barrett Industrial Trucks, Inc. v. Old Republic Insurance Co., 26 the same federal district court concluded that the attorney-client privilege did not protect counsel s communications with former employees, which included discussions regarding the facts of the case, gathering relevant documents, and assisting in the preparation of discovery responses. 27 And in Connolly F.3d 582 (4th Cir. 1997). 19 Id. at F.2d 1355 (9th Cir. 1981). 21 Id. at F. Supp. 2d 182 (D.P.R. 2001). 23 See id. at ; see also Surles v. Air France, No. 00-Civ.-5004, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS at *17-18 (S.D.N.Y. July 19, 2001) (refusing to compel the former employee to answer questions concerning his interview with counsel). 24 No. 82-C-4585, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (N.D. Ill. Oct. 1, 1985). 25 Id. at * F.R.D. 515 (N.D. Ill. 1990). 27 Id. at
6 FDCC Quarterly/Spring 2007 Data Systems, Inc. v. Victor Technologies, Inc., 28 the federal district court for the Southern District of California concluded that the attorney-client privilege did not protect a former employee s communications with counsel, including those communications made for the purpose of preparing the former employee for his deposition. It reasoned that the former employee could not bind the corporation, was not required to speak to the corporation s attorney, and was not the only person with relevant knowledge. 29 While many of these cases concerned the issue of whether an attorney s interview with a former employee is protected by the privilege, most of these cases (including the cases noted above that actually protected communications with the former employee) did not squarely decide if an attorney s deposition preparation with a former employee is protected. A survey of extant law, however, reveals that a majority of cases that have addressed this issue have refused to extend the privilege to deposition preparation. IV. Deposition Preparation of a Former Employee Perhaps the most instructive case decided thus far regarding whether the deposition preparation of a former employee is protected by the attorney-client privilege is Peralta v. Cendant Corp. 30 In Peralta, the federal district court in Connecticut was asked to determine whether the attorney-client privilege protected certain communications between a company s attorney and the company s former supervisor. 31 During the deposition of the former supervisor, the plaintiff s counsel asked the former supervisor about her pre-deposition communications with the company s attorney. The attorney objected on the basis of privilege. 32 Later, after a break in the deposition, plaintiff s counsel asked the former supervisor what, if anything, she had discussed with the company s attorney during the break. Again, the attorney objected on the basis of privilege. 33 After first analyzing the Supreme Court s holding in Upjohn and many of the cases cited above, the court concluded that the attorney-client privilege did not protect communications between counsel and the former supervisor to the same extent that it would protect communications between counsel and a current employee. 34 The court reasoned that the F.R.D. 89 (S.D. Cal. 1987). 29 Id. at 90, F.R.D. 38 (D. Conn. 1999). 31 Id. at Id. at Id. 34 Id. at
7 The Attorney-Client Privilege former supervisor was not required to speak at the direction of management (which is one factor relied on by the Upjohn Court), and the former supervisor had no continuing duty to provide the information sought in her deposition. 35 That determination notwithstanding, the court did find that any privileged information obtained by [the former supervisor while employed by the corporation], including any information conveyed by counsel during that period, remain[ed] privileged upon the termination of [the former supervisor s] employment. 36 Likewise, any communications between counsel and the former supervisor made for the purpose of learning facts related to the plaintiff s termination, of which the former supervisor was aware owing to her employment, were privileged regardless of when they occurred. 37 But significantly, the court refused to extend the privilege to the former supervisor s deposition preparation: To the extent that conversations between [counsel] and [the former supervisor] went beyond [the former supervisor s] knowledge of the circumstances of plaintiff s employment and termination, and beyond [the former supervisor s] other activities within the course of her employment with the defendant, such communications, if any, have not been shown to be entitled to defendant s attorney-client privilege. If, for example, [counsel] informed [the former supervisor] of facts developed during the litigation, such as testimony of other witnesses, of which [the former supervisor] would not have had prior or independent personal knowledge, such communications would not be privileged, particularly given their potential to influence a witness to conform or adjust her testimony to such information, consciously or unconsciously.... Further, with respect to the inquiry into [counsel] and [the former supervisor s] discussions during the break as to how a question should be handled, they have not been shown to be entitled to any privilege, and opposing counsel has the right to ask about matters that may have affected or changed the witness s testimony.... As to any communications between defendant s counsel and a former employee whom counsel does not represent, which bear on or otherwise potentially affect the witness s testimony, consciously or unconsciously, no attorney-client privilege applies Id. at Id. at Id. 38 Id. at (emphasis added). 309
8 FDCC Quarterly/Spring 2007 This reasoning is fairly consistent with the opinion of well-regarded commentator, Edna Selan Epstein, which states that post-employment communications should not be privileged because the former employee is... no longer an agent for the corporation and occupies a position no different than that of any stranger. 39 Other courts likewise have determined that the holding in Peralta which itself refused to wholly extend the privilege to communications with former employees sweeps too broadly. In Infosystems, Inc. v. Ceridian Corp., 40 the federal district court for the Eastern District of Michigan disagreed somewhat with the holding in Peralta. The defendant relied on Peralta to argue that certain communications between its counsel and its former employee were protected by the attorney-client privilege because the communications involved activities or knowledge acquired during his employment with the defendant. 41 The court disagreed, however, finding that the ruling in Peralta sweeps too broadly: The [Upjohn] Court was careful to note that the communications at issue in that case were made by Upjohn employees to counsel for Upjohn acting as such, at the direction of corporate superiors in order to secure legal advice from counsel.... Peralta s ultimate ruling, however, omits this direction of management element of the Upjohn decision.... The Court... concludes that counsel s communications with a former employee of the client corporation generally should be treated no differently from communications with any other third-party fact witness. 42 However, the Infosystems court acknowledged certain exceptions to this general rule. 43 Specifically, privileged communications that occurred during the period of employment remain privileged. 44 Moreover, if a former employee retains an agency relationship with the former employer, then the former employee s communications with counsel would be cloaked with privilege Epstein, supra note 4, at F.R.D. 303 (E.D. Mich. 2000). 41 See id. at Id. at (emphasis added). 43 Id. at Id. 45 Id. 310
9 The Attorney-Client Privilege Similarly, in United States v. Merck-Medco Managed Care, LLC, 46 the federal district court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania was asked to decide whether communications between the defendant s counsel and the defendant s former employee, made during preparation for her deposition and between breaks in her deposition, were protected by the attorney-client privilege. 47 The court ultimately held that the privilege did not protect, inter alia, [d]escriptions and/or summaries of witness testimony provided to [the defendant s counsel] for [the former employee], and [c]onversations between [the defendant s counsel] and [the former employee] while she was under oath during the deposition. 48 The court reasoned that any such communications may have influenced the former employee s testimony; thus, the plaintiffs counsel was entitled to that information. 49 And finally, in Wade Williams Distribution, Inc. v. American Broadcasting Cos., 50 the federal district court for the Southern District of New York confronted the issue whether communications between the defendant s counsel and the defendant s former employee, which occurred the day before his deposition, were protected by the attorney-client privilege. 51 Interestingly, at the former employee s deposition, the former employee testified that the defendant s counsel was acting as his attorney for the purpose of the deposition and anything else related to this case. 52 The court held that the communications were not privileged despite the claim that the former employee was being represented by the defendant s counsel: That assertion... should... make no difference to the application of Peralta. The mere volunteered representation by corporate counsel of a former employee should not be allowed to shield information which there is no independent basis for including within the attorney-client F. Supp. 2d 554 (E.D. Pa. 2004). 47 Id. at See id. at 556, Id. at No. 00-Civ.-5002, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (S.D.N.Y. June 30, 2004). 51 Id. at *2. 52 Id. 53 Id. at *4-5; see also City of New York v. Coastal Oil New York, Inc., No. 96-Civ.-8667, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1010, at *6-7 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 8, 2000) (allowing the plaintiff to question a third party about the corporate counsel s activities that aided the witness in preparing to be deposed; the interrogation included information regarding what counsel did to refresh the witness s recollection, reminders of past testimony, references to the testimony of other witnesses, and any instructions about the witness s testimony). 311
10 FDCC Quarterly/Spring 2007 privilege. 53 The holdings of the courts in Peralta, Infosystems, Merck-Medco, and Wade Williams, which squarely addressed the relevant issue, are consistent with the opinions of several well-regarded treatises. 54 V. Conclusions and Practical Suggestions Safe practice by a company s attorney should assume that the attorney-client privilege does not protect communications between a party s counsel and its former employee, which bear on or potentially affect the former employee s testimony. Even if a bit conservative, acting under this assumption will provide the caution needed to avoid potential waiver issues. It can be safely assumed, however, that any privileged information obtained by the former employee while employed by the party, including any information conveyed by counsel during that period, remains privileged upon the termination of his or her employment. Thus, when required to meet with a former employee, a few prescriptions apply: Establish the former employee s precise dates of employment. Ascertain what discussions, if any, the former employee had with corporate counsel before the end of his or her employment. If it is determined that privileged communications occurred during the former employee s employment, remind him or her that those communications are privileged and that he or she should not reveal the substance of those communications to anyone but you and your client. Do not discuss with the former employee what you have learned about the case from your client, documents, witnesses, etc. unless you are prepared for the other side to learn what you know. If you must prepare a former employee for a deposition, explain the deposition process, but do not reveal your work product to the former employee. During the deposition, avoid discussing anything with the former employee that you are not prepared for the other side to learn. Again, assume at least initially that everything you tell the former employee is discoverable James Wm. Moore et al., Moore s Federal Practice 26.49[4] (3d ed. 2003) (stating information that was privileged during the former employee s employment remains privileged; however, communications going beyond the employee s knowledge of circumstances learned through his or her employment are not privileged); see also Epstein, supra note 4, at (stating or implying that the majority of cases that have examined the issue have concluded that the privilege does not attach to communications with former employees because the former employee s testimony will be molded by counsel for the employer). 312
11 The Attorney-Client Privilege For the sake of being thorough, it is necessary to conclude with the following caution. Some of the cases discussed in this article note the possibility that the work product doctrine might offer protection to these communications, even where the attorney-client privilege does not. These courts reason that work-product protection is necessary to prevent the discovery of counsel s mental impressions, opinions, and theories of the case. 55 But [w]ould not the revelation of attorney work product in the context of litigation to a deponent who, as a former employee, no longer had a community of interest with the employer constitute a waiver of the work product doctrine? 56 Because there are conflicting opinions on this subject, 57 the most conservative approach again is the most prudent. It assumes that the work product doctrine does not protect communications between a party s counsel and its former employee, which bear on or potentially affect the former employee s testimony. 55 See, e.g., Connolly Data Sys., Inc. v. Victor Techs., Inc., 114 F.R.D. 89, (S.D. Cal. 1987) (concluding the work product doctrine protected communications between counsel and a former employee because the disclosure of such communications would reveal counsel s mental impressions, opinions, and theories of the case). 56 Epstein, supra note 4, at Compare Clark Equip. Co. v. Lift Parts Mfg. Co., No. 82-C-4586, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS , at *15 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 1, 1985) ( If counsel, in discussions with third parties, reveals his mental impressions, etc. to such third parties, any claim of work product privilege is waived by such non-privileged disclosure. ), with Morales v. United States, No. 94-Civ.-4865, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6035, at *3-4 (S.D.N.Y. May 5, 1997) (concluding that pre-deposition communications with non-party witnesses were cloaked by work-product immunity because the purpose of the doctrine is to protect work product from knowledge of opposing counsel and his client, and reasoning that disclosure... to third persons does not waive work-product immunity as to opposing counsel and parties. ). 313
12 FDCC Quarterly/Spring
The 2010 Amendments to the Expert Discovery Provisions of Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: A Brief Reminder
ABA Section of Litigation 2012 Section Annual Conference April 18 20, 2012: Deposition Practice in Complex Cases: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly The to the Expert Discovery Provisions of Rule 26 of the
More informationPlaintiff, - v - Civ. No. 1:13-CV-1018 (MAD/RFT) COUNTY OF RENSSELAER, et al., DISCOVERY ORDER
Case 1:13-cv-01018-MAD-DJS Document 76 Filed 02/10/15 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JAMES KARAM, Plaintiff, - v - Civ. No. 1:13-CV-1018 (MAD/RFT) COUNTY OF RENSSELAER,
More informationNOW COMES Defendant, Daniel W. Tuttle ( Mr. Tuttle ), by and through counsel, and
NORTH CAROLINA DAVIDSON COUNTY IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION 06 CVS 948 AZALEA GARDEN BOARD & CARE, INC., Plaintiff, v. MEREDITH DODSON VANHOY, Personal Representative of the
More informationCase 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1130 Filed 07/09/14 Page 1 of 5
Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1130 Filed 07/09/14 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION SHANNON PEREZ, ET AL, Plaintiffs, v. RICK
More informationSTEVEN J. HATFILL, Plaintiff, v. THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:04cv807 (CMH/LO)
STEVEN J. HATFILL, Plaintiff, v. THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:04cv807 (CMH/LO) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA, ALEXANDRIA DIVISION 242 F.R.D.
More informationI. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(4)(C): COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN ATTORNEYS AND EXPERTS
National Employment Lawyers Association PREVENTING WAGE THEFT: A Two-Day Guide To Litigating Cases Involving Wages, Hours & Work Friday, March 8- Saturday, 9, 2013 Holiday Inn Chicago Mart Plaza, Chicago,
More informationExpert Witness Disclosure and Privilege (Federal & New York)
George Sacco, Esq. Purcell & Ingrao GSaccolaw@aol.com September 2, 2011 Expert Witness Disclosure and Privilege (Federal & New York) FEDERAL Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) Rule 26(A)(2) governs
More informationSSSHHHHH THERE S AN INSURANCE BROKER IN THE ROOM!
ABA Section of Litigation 2012 Insurance Coverage Litigation Committee CLE Seminar, March 1-3, 2012: Hey! Give Me Back That Document! Privilege Issues in Insurance Coverage Disputes SSSHHHHH THERE S AN
More informationSIGNED this 31st day of August, 2010.
SIGNED this 31st day of August, 2010. CRAIG A. GARGOTTA UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION IN RE: ' CASE NO. 09-12799-CAG
More informationDrafting the Joint Defense Agreement
Drafting the Joint Defense Agreement (with Sample Provisions) Daralyn J. Durie Joint defense agreements have some obvious advantages, but some not-so-obvious disadvantages. If you plan to enter into one,
More informationTHE CORPORATE COUNSELOR
THE CORPORATE COUNSELOR NOVEMBER 2013 Third-Party Litigation Investing and Attorney-Client Privilege By David A. Prange Civil litigation is potentially expensive, and achieving lucrative outcomes is not
More informationCase 2:11-cv-01174-TS-PMW Document 257 Filed 02/03/15 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION
Case 2:11-cv-01174-TS-PMW Document 257 Filed 02/03/15 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, a Utah municipal corporation;
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION Kimlyn Cline Plaintiff, v. Advanced Medical Optics, Inc., Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:08-CV-62 (TJW) MEMORANDUM
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND. v. * Civil Action No.: RDB 10-1895 MEMORANDUM OPINION
Joel I. Sher, Chapter 11 Trustee, * IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND Plaintiff, * v. * Civil Action No.: RDB 10-1895 SAF Financial, Inc., et al., * Defendants. * * * * *
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 14-80374-CIV-COHN/SELTZER ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISQUALIFY DEFENSE COUNSEL
PHARMA SUPPLY, INC., v. Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 14-80374-CIV-COHN/SELTZER MITCHELL A. STEIN and STEIN LAW, P.C., Defendants. / ORDER DENYING MOTION
More informationCase 5:14-cv-00093-RS-GRJ Document 21 Filed 05/28/14 Page 1 of 9
Case 5:14-cv-00093-RS-GRJ Document 21 Filed 05/28/14 Page 1 of 9 MARY SOWELL et al., Plaintiffs, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PANAMA CITY DIVISION Page 1 of
More informationCase 2:07-cv-10945-SFC-MKM Document 132 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Case 2:07-cv-10945-SFC-MKM Document 132 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION DURA GLOBAL, TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, CIVIL
More informationProtecting Against the Inadvertent Waiver of the Attorney-Client Privilege When Providing Defense-Related Information to an Insurer
Protecting Against the Inadvertent Waiver of the Attorney-Client Privilege When Providing Defense-Related Information to an Insurer Kirk A. Pasich March 2011. 1 Introduction Insurers often ask that their
More informationTORT AND INSURANCE LAW REPORTER. Informal Discovery Interviews Between Defense Attorneys and Plaintiff's Treating Physicians
This article originally appeared in The Colorado Lawyer, Vol. 25, No. 26, June 1996. by Jeffrey R. Pilkington TORT AND INSURANCE LAW REPORTER Informal Discovery Interviews Between Defense Attorneys and
More informationExpert Witness Issues in the Delaware Bankruptcy Court: The Teleglobe Decision Proceedings
Expert Witness Issues in the Delaware Bankruptcy Court: The Teleglobe Decision Proceedings Article contributed by: Kenneth Pasquale of Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP 1 The road taken by an attorney in working
More informationETHICAL ISSUES IN THE EMPLOYMENT CONTEXT
ETHICAL ISSUES IN THE EMPLOYMENT CONTEXT Mark J. Oberti Oberti Sullivan LLP 723 Main Street, Suite 340 Houston, Texas 77002 (713) 401-3556 mark@osattorneys.com Edwin Sullivan Oberti Sullivan LLP 723 Main
More information2:13-cv-11754-DPH-MJH Doc # 4 Filed 04/18/13 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 39 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
2:13-cv-11754-DPH-MJH Doc # 4 Filed 04/18/13 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 39 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ADDICTION & DETOXIFICATION ) INSTITUTE, LLC, ) Plaintiff,
More informationCan You Keep A Secret? How the Attorney- Client and Self-Evaluative Privileges Can Apply to Your Compliance Practice
Can You Keep A Secret? How the Attorney- Client and Self-Evaluative Privileges Can Apply to Your Compliance Practice Pamela J. Grimm grimmp@msx.upmc.edu Associate Counsel UPMC Health System 200 Lothrop
More informationUnited States District Court
Case:0-cv-0-JSW Document Filed0//0 Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 Tim Galli, v. Plaintiff, Pittsburg Unified School District, et al., Defendants. / No. C 0- JSW
More informationAttorney Depositions in IP Litigation
Attorney Depositions in IP Litigation MIPLA STAMPEDE May 2011 Kevin D. Conneely, Esq. Direct: 612.335.1829 Email: kevin.conneely@leonard.com NO GOOD CAN COME OF THIS Kevin D. Conneely NO GOOD CAN COME
More informationCase: 1:10-cv-00363-WHB Doc #: 31 Filed: 09/02/10 1 of 14. PageID #: 172
Case: 1:10-cv-00363-WHB Doc #: 31 Filed: 09/02/10 1 of 14. PageID #: 172 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION JAMES MEYER, v. Plaintiff, DEBT RECOVERY SOLUTIONS
More informationThe Attorney-Client Privilege: Top Ten Lessons Learned From the Litigation Battlefield
The Attorney-Client Privilege: Top Ten Lessons Learned From the Litigation Battlefield By: Ronald J. Levine, Rachel C. Engelstein, and Jacquelyne D. Garfield* ACC-Greater New York Chapter 2008 ETHICS PROGRAM
More informationDiscovery in Bad Faith Insurance Claims: State of the Law, Successful Strategies. Teleconference Program Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Discovery in Bad Faith Insurance Claims: State of the Law, Successful Strategies Teleconference Program Wednesday, March 29, 2006 Topic III A. Who is suing? Does it matter? 1. Whether suit is brought by
More informationFACTUAL BACKGROUND. former co-workers of the decedents with whom they worked at common job sites, in common
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION This Document Refers To: WALTER SKY x Index No.: 105281/2000 RECOMMENDATION OF THE SPECIAL MASTER FACTUAL
More informationCase 1:13-cv-00195-WTL-MJD Document 122 Filed 06/24/14 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: <pageid>
Case 1:13-cv-00195-WTL-MJD Document 122 Filed 06/24/14 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION TALAL S. HAMDAN M.D., vs. Plaintiff, INDIANA
More informationCase 3:12-cv-00165-LRH-VPC Document 50 Filed 06/07/13 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case :-cv-00-lrh-vpc Document 0 Filed 0/0/ Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 0 GINA NELSON, Plaintiff, vs. NAV-RENO-GS, LLC, et al., Defendants. :-CV-0-LRH (VPC ORDER 0 This discovery
More informationNebraska Ethics Advisory Opinion for Lawyers No. 91-3
Nebraska Ethics Advisory Opinion for Lawyers No. 91-3 I. AS COUNSEL FOR A PLAINTIFF, AN ATTORNEY MAY NOT ETHICALLY INTERVIEW PRESENT OR FORMER EMPLOYEES OF A DEFENDANT CORPORATION IF: (a) THE EMPLOYEES
More informationFINANCIAL INDUSTRY REGULATORY AUTHORITY OFFICE OF HEARING OFFICERS. Respondent.
FINANCIAL INDUSTRY REGULATORY AUTHORITY OFFICE OF HEARING OFFICERS DEPARTMENT OF ENFORCEMENT, v. RESPONDENT, Complainant, Respondent. Disciplinary Proceeding No. 2011026874301 Hearing Officer Andrew H.
More informationDefending Trade Secrets In The E-Discovery Era
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Defending Trade Secrets In The E-Discovery Era Law360,
More informationCase 05-00262-8-JRL Doc 142 Filed 06/04/07 Entered 06/04/07 17:00:30 Page 1 of 5
Case 05-00262-8-JRL Doc 142 Filed 06/04/07 Entered 06/04/07 17:00:30 Page 1 of 5 SO ORDERED. SIGNED this 04 day of June, 2007. J. Rich Leonard United States Bankruptcy Judge IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY
More informationDISCOVERY IN BAD FAITH CASES
DISCOVERY IN BAD FAITH CASES Barbara A. O Brien A. The Tort of Bad Faith Bad faith is a separate tort from breach of contract. Anderson v. Continental Ins. Co., 85 Wis.2d 675, 686, 271 N.W.2d 368 (1978).
More informationSTATE OF NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Patricia L. Acampora, Chairwoman Maureen F. Harris Robert E. Curry, Jr. Cheryl A. Buley STATE OF NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION At a session of the Public Service Commission
More informationSTATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
[Cite as Nageotte v. Boston Mills Brandywine Ski Resort, 2012-Ohio-6102.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) MEGAN NAGEOTTE C.A. No. 26563 Appellee
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. Memorandum and Order
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CAROSELLA & FERRY, P.C., Plaintiff, v. TIG INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. 00-2344 Memorandum and Order YOHN,
More information(Previously published in The Legal Intelligencer, November 8, 2011) New Cost Guidelines for E-Discovery by Peter Vaira
(Previously published in The Legal Intelligencer, November 8, 2011) New Cost Guidelines for E-Discovery by Peter Vaira In a recent case in the Eastern District, Judge Legrome Davis upheld court costs of
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Case 3:13-cv-30138-MGM Document 100 Filed 08/12/14 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS PREFERRED MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 13-30138-MGM LEONARD
More informationKey differences between federal practice and California practice
Discovery and deposition practice in federal court Key differences between federal practice and California practice BY BRIAN J. MALLOY Federal law governs procedural matters for cases that are in federal
More informationISBA Advisory Opinion on Professional Conduct
ISBA Advisory Opinion on Professional Conduct ISBA Advisory Opinions on Professional Conduct are prepared as an educational service to members of the ISBA. While the Opinions express the ISBA interpretation
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 05-1452 PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION,
More informationThe Fiduciary Exception to the Attorney-Client Privilege and Its Application in Litigation. by George O. Peterson
The Fiduciary Exception to the Attorney-Client Privilege and Its Application in Litigation by George O. Peterson I. INTRODUCTION Trusts and estates attorneys who represent fiduciaries may have little occasion
More informationREPORT. Introduction
REPORT Introduction Although courts, lawyers and the legal system try to avoid mistakes, they sometimes happen. There have always been situations where, for one reason or another, material or information
More informationReflections on Ethical Issues In the Tripartite Relationship
Reflections on Ethical Issues In the Tripartite Relationship [click] By Bruce A. Campbell 1 Introduction In most areas of the practice of law, there are a number of ethical issues that arise on a frequent
More informationWhat to Do When Your Witness Testimony Doesn t Match His or Her Declaration
What to Do When Your Witness Testimony Doesn t Match His or Her Declaration Russell R. Yurk Jennings, Haug & Cunningham, L.L.P. 2800 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1800 Phoenix, AZ 85004-1049 (602) 234-7819
More informationCase 2:07-cv-02175-JPM-dkv Document 85 Filed 01/08/2008 Page 1 of 8
Case 2:07-cv-02175-JPM-dkv Document 85 Filed 01/08/2008 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION SPINE SOLUTIONS, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
More informationWrit of Mandamus is Conditionally Granted; Opinion Filed December 3, 2013. In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
Writ of Mandamus is Conditionally Granted; Opinion Filed December 3, 2013. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-01457-CV IN RE SOUTHPAK CONTAINER CORPORATION AND CLEVELAND
More informationOffering Defense Witnesses to New York Grand Juries. Your client has just been held for the action of the Grand Jury. Although you
Offering Defense Witnesses to New York Grand Juries By: Mark M. Baker 1 Your client has just been held for the action of the Grand Jury. Although you have a valid defense, you do not want your client to
More informationRUNNING THE ETHICAL OBSTACLE COURSE: JOINT DEFENSE AGREEMENTS
RUNNING THE ETHICAL OBSTACLE COURSE: JOINT DEFENSE AGREEMENTS Todd M. Sahner * The general counsel of one of your long-time corporate clients asks you to defend his company in a significant multi-party
More informationElectronic Discovery and the New Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: A Guide For In-House Counsel and Attorneys
Electronic Discovery and the New Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: A Guide For In-House Counsel and Attorneys By Ronald S. Allen, Esq. As technology has evolved, the federal courts have
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals No. 13-1186 For the Seventh Circuit IN RE: JAMES G. HERMAN, Debtor-Appellee. APPEAL OF: JOHN P. MILLER Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
More informationCase 2:13-cv-01601-AKK Document 41 Filed 01/24/14 Page 1 of 11
Case 2:13-cv-01601-AKK Document 41 Filed 01/24/14 Page 1 of 11 FILED 2014 Jan-24 PM 02:31 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ROSCOE FRANKLIN CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-3359 v. GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL ASSURANCE COMPANY O Neill, J. November 9, 2004 MEMORANDUM
More informationCourt of Appeals. First District of Texas
Opinion issued November 7, 2014 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-14-00704-CV IN RE BAYTOWN NISSAN INC., BURKLEIN FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, FREDERICK W. BURKLEIN AND J. CARY
More informationCase 2:13-cv-01419-JWS Document 413 Filed 09/25/14 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Case 2:13-cv-01419-JWS Document 413 Filed 09/25/14 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA LAURIE MILLER, BRIAN DIMAS, KIM MILLS, ANTHONY SOZA, BRUCE CAMPBELL, KELLIE 2:13-cv-1419
More informationTHE DUTY TO PRESERVE, COLLECT, AND PRODUCE ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION HELD BY THIRD PARTIES
ESI Discovery THE DUTY TO PRESERVE, COLLECT, AND PRODUCE ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION HELD BY THIRD PARTIES Ronald C. Wernette, Bowman and Brooke LLP Introduction The legal landscape is now littered
More informationA Shield For Accounting Firm Docs Under PCAOB Inspection
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com A Shield For Accounting Firm Docs Under PCAOB Inspection
More informationCase 6:13-cv-01168-EFM-TJJ Document 157 Filed 06/26/15 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
Case 6:13-cv-01168-EFM-TJJ Document 157 Filed 06/26/15 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS CORPORATION, v. Plaintiff, PREMIUM BEEF FEEDERS,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION. Case No. 2:11-cv-162-FtM-36SPC ORDER
GAVIN'S ACE HARDWARE, INC., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION Plaintiff, -vs- Case No. 2:11-cv-162-FtM-36SPC FEDERATED MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. ORDER
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION
Goodridge v. Hewlett Packard Company Doc. 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION CHARLES GOODRIDGE, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION H-07-4162 HEWLETT-PACKARD
More informationPlaintiff, Defendants. (1) Plaintiff s Motions to Strike, docket nos. 158 and 164, are DENIED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE WANDA DAVIS, v. THE CITY OF SEATTLE, and MICHAEL KORLING, Plaintiff, Defendants. No. C0-Z ORDER THIS MATTER comes before the Court
More informationNOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
Filed 8/27/14 Tesser Ruttenberg etc. v. Forever Entertainment CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 14-15408 07/10/2014 ID: 9164148 DktEntry: 71 Page: 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LEONARD FYOCK, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants No. 14-15408 U.S. District Court
More informationIs Turnabout Fair Play? Insurers Seek Privileged Work Product From Policyholders Asserting Bad Faith Claims
MEALEY S TM LITIGATION REPORT Insurance Bad Faith Is Turnabout Fair Play? Insurers Seek Privileged Work Product From Policyholders Asserting Bad Faith Claims by Kristi Singleton and Richard Gallena Dickstein
More informationHow To Know If A Prosecutor Can Contact A Victim In A Criminal Case
Nebraska Ethics Advisory Opinion for Lawyers No. 09-03 IF THE VICTIM IN A CRIMINAL CASE THAT A COUNTY ATTORNEY IS PROSECUTING HAS RETAINED COUNSEL TO REPRESENT HIM IN A CIVIL CASE ARISING FROM THE SAME
More informationCase 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 521 Filed 10/27/14 Page 1 of 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 521 Filed 10/27/14 Page 1 of 7 WO IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) TOWN OF COLORADO CITY,
More informationInside Counsel: The Attorney-Client Privilege Within Law Firms
November 2007 DRI For the Defense Inside Counsel: The Attorney-Client Privilege Within Law Firms By Mark J. Fucile Fucile & Reising LLP In recent years it has become increasingly common for a designated
More informationTHE ASSOCIATION OF THE BAR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS FORMAL OPINION 2009-6 AGGREGATE SETTLEMENTS
THE ASSOCIATION OF THE BAR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS FORMAL OPINION 2009-6 AGGREGATE SETTLEMENTS TOPIC: Multiple Representations; Aggregate Settlements; Advance
More informationDISCOVERY OF ELECTRONICALLY-STORED INFORMATION IN STATE COURT: WHAT TO DO WHEN YOUR COURT S RULES DON T HELP
DISCOVERY OF ELECTRONICALLY-STORED INFORMATION IN STATE COURT: WHAT TO DO WHEN YOUR COURT S RULES DON T HELP Presented by Frank H. Gassler, Esq. Written by Jeffrey M. James, Esq. Over the last few years,
More informationCase: 1:11-cv-00375-DAP Doc #: 16 Filed: 05/10/11 1 of 5. PageID #: <pageid> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
Case 111-cv-00375-DAP Doc # 16 Filed 05/10/11 1 of 5. PageID # 11cv0375a-ord(jurisdiction).wpd UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION C.B. FLEET COMPANY, INC.,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN STEVEN OLSON, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 12-C-1126 BEMIS COMPANY, INC. et al., Defendants. DECISION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISQUALIFY
More informationOpinion #177. Advancing Litigation Costs Through Lines of Credit
Opinion #177. Advancing Litigation Costs Through Lines of Credit Issued by the Professional Ethics Commission Date Issued: December 14, 2001 Facts and Question An attorney has requested an opinion on whether
More informationWHERE THERE S A WILL, THERE S A... DUTY?: A CLOSER LOOK AT THE SAFEKEEPING OF CLIENTS ORIGINAL ESTATE PLANNING DOCUMENTS. Jennifer A.
WHERE THERE S A WILL, THERE S A... DUTY?: A CLOSER LOOK AT THE SAFEKEEPING OF CLIENTS ORIGINAL ESTATE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Jennifer A. Kosteva Before the ink has dried on their newly executed wills, clients
More informationCASE EVALUATION AND PREPARATION DEFENSE PERSPECTIVE
CASE EVALUATION AND PREPARATION DEFENSE PERSPECTIVE Solo and Small Firm Conference James R. Hobbs Wyrsch Hobbs & Mirakian, PC In assessing a criminal case, there are many factors that need to be considered
More informationEthical Issues for Employment Defense Lawyers Conducting Internal Investigations
Ethical Issues for Employment Defense Lawyers Conducting Internal Investigations National Conference on Equal Employment Opportunity Law American Bar Association T. Scott Kelly, Shareholder Ogletree, Deakins,
More informationCOURSE DESCRIPTION AND SYLLABUS LITIGATING IN THE DIGITAL AGE: ELECTRONIC CASE MANAGEMENT (994-001) Fall 2014
COURSE DESCRIPTION AND SYLLABUS LITIGATING IN THE DIGITAL AGE: ELECTRONIC CASE MANAGEMENT (994-001) Professors:Mark Austrian Christopher Racich Fall 2014 Introduction The ubiquitous use of computers, the
More informationRule 26. General Provisions Governing Discovery.
Published on Arkansas Judiciary (https://courts.arkansas.gov) Rule 26. General Provisions Governing Discovery. (a) Discovery Methods. Parties may obtain discovery by one or more of the following methods:
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS MARJORIE KOSTER, Personal Representative of FOR PUBLICATION the Estate of DOUGLAS W. KOSTER, Deceased, December 26, 2000 and CLYDE MUNSELL, Personal Representative 9:40
More informationCorporate Counsel Beware: Limits Of 'No Contact Rule'
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Corporate Counsel Beware: Limits Of 'No Contact Rule'
More informationRule 502. Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product; Limitations on Waiver. (a) Scope of waiver. In federal proceedings, the waiver by
Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules Proposed Amendment: Rule 502 Rule 502. Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product; Limitations on Waiver (a) Scope of waiver. In federal proceedings, the waiver by
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY
[Cite as Joyce v. Rough, 2009-Ohio-5731.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY Rosemary S. Joyce, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Edward M. Joyce Court
More information12/3/2015. Thomas J. Farrell Farrell and Reisinger, LLC Pittsburgh
Brian W. Perry, Esq. PSWZ Law Firm Harrisburg David J. Freed Cumberland County District Attorney Carlisle Thomas J. Farrell Farrell and Reisinger, LLC Pittsburgh A lawyer shall not represent a client if
More informationNO. 5-09-0460 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT
NOTICE Decision filed 02/09/11. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same. NO. 5-09-0460 IN THE APPELLATE COURT
More informationWORKPLACE INVESTIGATIONS: CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING
WORKPLACE INVESTIGATIONS: CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND THE ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT DOCTRINE IN USING OUTSIDE COUNSEL TO INVESTIGATE ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF EMPLOYMENT LAWS IN
More informationCase 3:11-cv-01234-MMH-MCR Document 25 Filed 08/24/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID 145
Case 3:11-cv-01234-MMH-MCR Document 25 Filed 08/24/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID 145 NORTH AMERICAN COMPANY FOR LIFE AND HEALTH INSURANCE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
More informationThe year after: post-amendment federal case law in Indiana concerning discovery of electronically stored information
By Lisa J. Berry-Tayman 1 The year after: post-amendment federal case law in Indiana concerning discovery of electronically stored information The Dec. 1, 2006 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil
More informationCase 8:05-cv-00636-JSM-TBM Document 23 Filed 11/07/05 Page 1 of 5 PageID 127 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION
Case 8:05-cv-00636-JSM-TBM Document 23 Filed 11/07/05 Page 1 of 5 PageID 127 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION MARIJA STONE, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 8:05-cv-636-T-30TBM
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO. 05-0613 444444444444 IN RE BEXAR COUNTY CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY S OFFICE, RELATOR 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 ON PETITION FOR
More informationHELLO? IS EVERYONE THERE?
HELLO? IS EVERYONE THERE? New York Law Journal 2005 Mar 28 By: Lauren Reiter Brody, Frances K. Browne, Deborah L. Shapiro and Sarah L. Jensen, News As of Jan. 1, CPLR 3113 provides a way for parties to
More informationF I L E D July 17, 2013
Case: 12-11255 Document: 00512311028 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/17/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 12-11255 Summary Calendar COMPANION PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
More informationRULES CONCERNING EXPERT WITNESSES FOR TSCPA SEMINAR
RULES CONCERNING EXPERT WITNESSES FOR TSCPA SEMINAR Capuder, Gaither & Amann, L.L.P. One Allen Center, Tenth Floor 500 Dallas, Suite 1000 Houston, Texas 77002-4804 (713) 654-7455 (713) 654-7412 (Direct)
More informationThe Journey from Legal Technician to Trusted Advisor: Pick up Your Road Map Here
The Journey from Legal Technician to Trusted Advisor: Pick up Your Road Map Here Thursday, April 25, 2013 2013 NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAW CONFERENCE APRIL 25 Panel Presentation The Journey from Legal Technician
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION JAMES D. FOWLER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No.: 08-cv-2785 ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Judge Robert M. Dow,
More informationUTAH. Past medical expenses may be recovered. Plaintiffs must show that they have been injured and,
UTAH Rick L. Rose Kristine M. Larsen RAY QUINNEY & NEBEKER P.C. 36 South State Street, Suite 1400 P.O. Box 43585 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Telephone: (801) 532-1500 Facsimile: (801) 532-7543 rrose@rqn.com
More informationASSESSING THE RISK OF A MUNICIPALITY S REORGANIZING UNDER CHAPTER 9 OF THE BANKRUPTCY CODE
ASSESSING THE RISK OF A MUNICIPALITY S REORGANIZING UNDER CHAPTER 9 OF THE BANKRUPTCY CODE By John E. Mitchell, Baker & McKenzie, LLP (Dallas) (john.mitchell@bakermckenzie.com) and Angela B. Degeyter,
More informationCase 2:04-cv-01053-HGB-DEK Document 190 Filed 07/25/07 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA VERSUS NO.
Case 2:04-cv-01053-HGB-DEK Document 190 Filed 07/25/07 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 04-1053 EDUCATION MANAGEMENT,
More information