Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Bugs in the Office
Consider the following situation: an employee anticipates that his employment is about to be terminated, for what he believes to be discriminatory or otherwise unlawful reasons. After consulting with an attorney, he decides to tape-record conversations with his supervisors, in the hopes of recording a “smoking gun” comment. A short time later, the employee is terminated, and he later commences litigation in federal court against his employer. In that lawsuit, is the employer entitled to obtain copies of the tape recordings through discovery, or are the recordings protected as work product because they were made in anticipation of litigation? If the recordings are discoverable, is the employee nonetheless entitled to withhold producing them until after his supervisor has been deposed? Courts in New York and elsewhere have reached a consensus on the first question, but not the second.
Are the Recordings Discoverable?
The countervailing interests at issue in this situation are laid out in Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On one hand, because the tape recordings were made in anticipation of litigation, they arguably constitute work product, and thus would be discoverable only upon a showing of substantial need and inability to obtain equivalent information by the employer, pursuant to Rule 26(b)(3). Given that the employer can simply speak with the supervisor to determine what was said to the former employee, it would be difficult for the employer to argue that it could not obtain the substantial equivalent of the tape-recorded statement. It should be noted that work product protection in this situation would not turn on whether the employee's attorney advised the employee to make the recordings. Indeed, Rule 26(b)(3) protects not only material prepared in anticipation of litigation by a party's attorney, but also material prepared by the party.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
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
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
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
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.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
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.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
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.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?