Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Tactical decision ends up waiving privilege
The US District Court for the Eastern District of PA has ruled that where a litigant intentionally disclosures an attorney-client privileged document that helps its case, this disclosure constitutes a waiver of the privilege as to all confidential communications regarding the same subject matter. The court held that outside counsel waived the attorney-client privilege by turning over e-mails to and from its in-house counsel because the disclosure of the e-mails was “deliberate” and “not inadvertent.” The court reasoned that, “where one party attempts to utilize the privilege as an offensive weapon, selectively disclosing communications in order to help its case, that party should be deemed to have waived the protection otherwise afforded it by the privilege it misused.” Murray v. Gemplus International, No. 02-CV-9023 (Sept. 15).
Work product privilege extends to trial consultants
The Third Circuit has ruled that the work product of a trial consultant is protected by the attorney work-product privilege. The court overturned a district court ruling that the privilege did not cover the pre-deposition preparation of a witness by a non-testifying trial consultant. The appeals court reasoned that compelling the disclosure of the substance of conversations between a defense witness, his counsel and the trial consultant “would require disclosure of communications protected by the work product doctrine.” In re Cendant Corporation Securities Litigation, No. 02-4386 (Sept. 16 ).
“Subsequent Good Act” by employer is admissible
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.