Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Attorneys have an ethical obligation to represent their clients zealously. Deposition preparation is key to that obligation. Preparing testifying witnesses educates and focuses them on important issues and facts of a case. This aside, the law regarding disclosure of work product provided to testifying witnesses is not well settled, and 'there is considerable room within which thoughtful judges can reach different conclusions.' Intermedics, Inc. v. Ventritex, Inc., 139 F.R.D. 384, 387 (N.D. Cal. 1991). Zealous representation, therefore, requires counsel to walk a line between witness preparation on one side and work product disclosure on the other. In so doing, counsel must also remain mindful of the line that exists between acceptable witness preparation and impermissible influencing of a witness. State v. Earp, 571 A.2d 1227, 1235 (Md. 1990). One misstep may lead to disclosure of counsel's mental impressions and strategy and, possibly, to serious sanctions.
The Work Product Doctrine
The work product doctrine was first announced in 1947 by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947). The Court in Hickman recognized the 'general policy against invading the privacy of an attorney's course of preparation.' The Court stressed that the work product doctrine is 'so essential to an orderly working of our system of legal procedure' that 'not even the most liberal of discovery theories can justify unwarranted inquires into the files and the mental impressions of an attorney.' Id. at 512. The doctrine was later fleshed out in Rule 26(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides in relevant part:
A party may obtain discovery of documents and tangible things otherwise discoverable ' and prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or by or for that other party's representative ' only upon a showing that the party seeking discovery has substantial need of the materials in the preparation of the party's case and that the party is unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means. In ordering discovery of such materials when the required showing has been made, the court shall protect against disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of an attorney or other representative of a party concerning the litigation.
Fact v. Opinion Work Product
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.
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.
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?