work product doctrine federal rules

Federal Law Governs Work Product Issues. 1 material prepared or mental impressions developed in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for a party or a partys representatives including the partys attorneys consultants sureties indemnitors insurers employees or agents.

Aba Section Of Business Law Audit Response Letters In The New

WORK PRODUCT DOCTRINE FOR NON-ATTORNEY PRODUCED DOCUMENTS.

. 26b3A makes it clear that documents produced by non-attorneys may also enjoy work product privilege. The work product doctrine which protects trial preparation mate-rials from discovery is a doctrine of uncertain dimensionI The scope of protection the doctrine provides these materials is one of the most con-troversial and vexing problems in the Federal Rules of Civil Proce-dure2 Despite guidance provided by hickman v. The work product doctrine shields material from disclosure when it is prepared by an attorney for use in pending litigation.

The purpose of the work product doctrine is to preserve the privacy and independence of lawyers by denying unwarranted intrusions into their private files and mental processes. Ordinarily a party may not discover. Federal courts assessing attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine claims must decide whether state law or federal law applies.

Work product as documents and tangible things. The United States Supreme Court put forth this rationale for the work product doctrine. The work-product doctrine originated in the 1947 case of Hickman v.

The Work Product Doctrine. The work product doctrine protects from discovery documents and tangible things that are prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or its representative. Documents crafted by attorneys in anticipation of litigation.

Attorney work product privilege permits attorneys to withhold from production documents and other tangible things prepared in anticipation of litigation by or for another party or its representative. The work-product doctrine is a judicially created doctrine now codified in Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 26b5. Litigation need only be imminent and includes actions such as grand jury proceedings investigations and administrative actions.

The Supreme Court acting at the recommendation of the Advisory Committee of the Judicial Conference later enshrined this doctrine formally in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedureas Rule. The federal rule allows parties to compel disclosure under certain circumstances such as if the material is substantially necessary or if it would cause unwarranted hardship as summarized in Fed. 385 1947 in which the US.

The work-product doctrine operates not as aprivilege that belongs to any party but rather as a protection for the adversary systetr. THE WORK PRODUCT DOCTRINE IN THE STATE COURTS When the modem Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were adopted in 1938 considerable doubt and controversy arose concerning the broad pro visions for deposition and discovery. As Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6 which accords special protection from disclosure to work product revealing an attorneys mental processes and Hickman v.

The provisions of Rule 26b3 are straightforward and easily un-derstood. 495 make clear such work product cannot be disclosed simply on a showing of substantial need or inability to obtain the equivalent without undue hardship. The work product doctrine protects statements reports notes and other materials prepared by the criminal defense attorney in anticipation of or during litigation.

When the modem Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were adopted in 1938 considerable doubt and controversy arose concerning the broad provisions for deposition and discovery. As with attorney-client privilege work product privilege does not protect underlying facts. Many lawyers engaged in the daily maneuvering of the adversary process naturally tended to defend a.

Documents that convey the mental impressions. 3 Work Product Doctrine-- The work-product doctrine is a procedural rule of federal law governed by Rule 26b3 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Sun Shipbuilding Dry Dock Co 68 FRD.

Prior to the 1970 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure courts applied two distinct tests when considering whether to allow pretrial discovery of documents. A Documents and Tangible Things. Taylor in which the Supreme Court affirmed a United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit decision which excluded from discovery of oral and written statements made by witnesses to a defendants attorney.

Although the work product doctrine is a tool most often utilized by attorneys Pennsylvania federal precedent indicates that attorney involvement is not necessary for the work-product protection. Generally state attorney-client privilege law applies in diversity cases while federal attorney-client privilege common law applies in federal question cases. The work-product privilege or doctrine 1 originated in the seminal case of Hickman v.

The work-product doctrine is a judicially created doctrine now codified in Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 26b5. The work-product doctrine protects documents that are prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or by or for that other partys representative. The Eastern District of Tennessee in a series of cases noted a split across the country whether the work-product doctrine protects signed witness statementsbefore deciding that it does not.

In federal court federal work product rules apply in federal question cases and some diversity actions. No interpretation or construction seems necessary Vir-ginia Elec. WOLFE SNOWDEN HURD LUERS AHL LLP.

That controversy can be fairly described as a conflict both of emotion and of basic philosophy. That controversy can be fairly described as a conflict both of emotion and of basic philosophy. Courts have held that intentionally sharing work product with family affiliated companies PR consultants insurance brokers potential investors or acquiring company investment bankers business allies through a compelled disclosure process andor to other similar persons entities or consultants does not waive the work product privilege.

A subject matter waiver of either privilege or work product is reserved for those unusual situations in which fairness requires a further disclosure of related protected. Supreme Court held that statements of witnesses obtained by an attorney prior to trial were privileged and thus protected from discovery. The work product doctrine protects statements reports notes and other materials prepared by the criminal defense attorney in anticipation of or during litigation.

The Court reasoned that to allow otherwise would be contrary to the public policy underlying the orderly. Some federal courts hold that the work-product doctrine protects witness statements while others do not. The rule provides that a voluntary disclosure in a federal proceeding or to a federal office or agency if a waiver generally results in a waiver only of the communication or information disclosed.

THE WORK PRODUCT DOCTRINE IN THE STATE COURTS When the modem Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were adopted in 1938 considerable doubt and controversy arose concerning the broad pro visions for deposition and discovery. Non-privileged documents may enjoy protection during discovery or at trial by application of the work product doctrine if. Contain the thoughts and mental impressions of the lawyer and thus are generally not discoverable.

2 a communication made in anticipation of litigation or for trial between a party and the partys representatives or among. 385 1947 in which the US.