IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
|
|
- Gervais Warner
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 McGREGOR W. SCOTT United States Attorney KENDALL J. NEWMAN Assistant U.S. Attorney 01 I Street, Suite -0 Sacramento, CA 1 Telephone: ( -1 GREGORY G. KATSAS Acting Assistant Attorney General JOYCE R. BRANDA MICHAEL D. GRANSTON JAY D. MAJORS Attorneys, Department of Justice Civil Division Post Office Box 1 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 00 Tel: (0 0-0 Fax: ( Attorneys for the United States of America UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel. Hendow, et al. v. Plaintiff, UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX, Defendant. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case No. S-0-0 GEB DAD UNITED STATES STATEMENT OF INTEREST IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE S RULING DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF PRIVILEGED DOCUMENTS
2 I. INTRODUCTION The United States opposes Defendant s request for reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge s October, 00 ruling denying Defendant s motion to compel production of documents, because the documents sought by Defendant constitute attorney-client privileged material and attorney work product of the U.S. Department of Justice ( DOJ and U.S. Department of Education ( DoEd Office of General Counsel ( OGC, protected from disclosure under F.R. Civ. P. (b(. The Magistrate Judge s denial of Defendant s motion was entirely correct, and it expressly followed the sound reasoning of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, which quashed a subpoena from Apollo Group, Inc. (Defendant s corporate parent seeking precisely the same documents from the Department of Education for use in a separate but related case. In re Apollo Group, Inc. Securities Litig., Misc. No. 0- (D.D.C., Mem. Opinion (June 0, 00 (the DC Court Proceeding. In that proceeding, the DC Court ruled that the documents at issue constituted classic opinion work-product [of the Government] that are protected from disclosure. Id. at, 1. The court further ruled that this nearly absolute protection 1 had not been waived by the documents having been shared with the Relators, and that the privilege could not be overcome by Apollo s purported showing of need. This court should reach the same result and uphold the Magistrate Judge s ruling. The United States submitted a Statement of Interest on this matter on August, 00, which it incorporates herein by reference. In the instant pleading, the United States responds only to the arguments directly raised in the Defendant s Request. 1 See In re Murphy, 0 F.d, (th Cir. ( Opinion-work product enjoys a nearly absolute immunity and can be discovered only in rare and extraordinary circumstances. -1-
3 II. BACKGROUND Defendant s document request to the Relators seeks three groups of documents: A. Communications which [Relators] and their counsel have had with the Department of Education ("DOE" about the exact issues presented in this lawsuit. B. Transcripts of depositions of Relators by the DOE dealing with the exact issues presented in this lawsuit. C. Executed statements of witnesses about the exact issues presented in this lawsuit The Government s privileges appear to be implicated by Groups A and B above, which the DC Court and the Magistrate Judge properly found to fall within work product protection. A. DC Subpoena Proceeding In 00, as part of discovery in a securities lawsuit pending against it, and seeking various documents that had been withheld from a previous FOIA production, Apollo Group Inc. (the corporate parent of the Defendant served a subpoena upon the Department of Education, seeking material generated by DoEd in connection with an administrative action, called a Program Review, that DoEd undertook as to Defendant beginning in 00, and the Program Review Report ( PRR that the DoEd issued in connection with its review. The DoEd objected to both subpoenas on various grounds. Apollo filed a motion to compel production of the documents subpoenaed from DoEd in the DC Court Proceeding, and DoEd cross-moved to quash the subpoena on various grounds, including the work-product privilege. Apollo and the DoEd then reached an agreement as to a partial The Government does not believe that the third group of documents sought by Defendant in this proceeding overlaps with the documents sought in the other pending proceeding or otherwise impinges upon the Government s privileges. To the extent they do not, the Government takes no position with respect to Defendant s request for those documents. --
4 production to narrow the scope of the dispute. They divided the documents subject to Apollo s subpoena into six categories, of which only one (Category overlaps the instant proceeding: ( All documents communicated to or received from third parties, including witness statements and communications with Apollo or the qui tam relators or their counsel. See United States Statement of Interest, August, 00 ( US SOI, Exh. II at 1-. This Category includes documents in Groups A and B of Defendant s document request to the Relators in this action. As part of the agreement reached in connection with the DC Court Proceeding, DoEd agreed to produce a certain subset of documents in Category in exchange for Apollo s agreement not to pursue production of certain other Categories. Id. at -. Notably, the agreement between DoEd and Apollo expressly barred any argument that DoEd s partial production constituted a subject-matter waiver: Id. at n.1. The parties agree that, in exercising its administrative discretion to produce specific documents, the Department has not waived any applicable privilege(s for those remaining documents, which will not be voluntarily produced. Likewise, by entering into this agreement, Apollo does not waive and expressly reserves the right to seek any documents from the Department in future litigation. Pursuant to applicable privileges, DoEd continued to withhold production of certain Category documents in whole or in part, which it described in a pleading in the DC Court Proceeding as follows (in pertinent part: Three ( documents listed in the Category Privilege log consisting of confidential witness interviews taken by Department attorneys to assist in formulating the strategy of the program review. Forty-three ( documents listed in the Category Privilege log consisting of communications between and among Department attorneys, qui tam relators counsel and the qui tam relators pertaining to opinions, recommendations, or advice about how to conduct the program review. --
5 See US SOI Exh. III at -. These documents fall within Groups A and B of the documents sought by Defendant in this motion. B. DC Court Ruling Upholding Work Product Protection For The Subject Documents The DC Court issued its ruling on June 0, 00, denying in its entirety UOP s motion to compel. See US SOI Exh. I at. That Court first held generally that the Program Review itself was conducted in anticipation of litigation. Id. at 1-. The DC Court specifically stated as follows: [DoEd s] Declarations thus establish that the DOE actually anticipated that the UOP Program Review would lead to litigation, and thus meet the work product privilege requirement that the attorney had a subjective belief that litigation was a real possibility. Id. at 1 (citation omitted. [T]he Program Review can fairly be described as an active investigation focusing upon specific events and a specific possible violation by a specific party, and thus in anticipation of litigation. Id. at (citation omitted. [T]o the extent that the OGC lawyers role in the Program Review was as legal advisors protecting their agency clients from the possibility of future litigation, it appears that under all the circumstances, the OGC lawyers prepared documents in anticipation of litigation. Id. (citation omitted. [T]he settlement agreement that ultimately resolved the Program Review short of litigation stated that a settlement was reached in order to resolve the program review and avoid the cost of future litigation, thus indicating that both Apollo and the DOE anticipated that the Program Review would actually have led to litigation if not settled. Id. at. Then, the DC Court examined the specific documents at issue and ruled that the interviews DoEd conducted of the Relators (referred to in Defendant s motion as depositions were protected opinion work product: The Court has already concluded, above, that the Program Review itself was conducted in anticipation of litigation, and Apollo offers no reason to doubt the DOE s assertion that releasing the three witness interview transcripts at issue would reveal the [OGC] attorneys entire This exhibit is paginated in two different ways, due to electronic filing. Page number references herein refer to the numbering at the top of the page thereon. --
6 plan and strategy for the [DOE] s program review and the anticipated final action based thereon. Id. at. The Court then reached the same conclusion as to the withheld communications between DoEd and the Relators: Id. at. The Court finds [DoEd s] explanation of the contents of the withheld documents sufficient to establish that they would reveal attorney opinions, mental impressions, and strategies in anticipation of litigation. The Court therefore finds that the DOE has properly withheld them pursuant to the attorney work-product privilege... The DC Court further held that the Government s work-product protection was not waived by having shared the subject documents with the Relators. The DC Court noted that: the D.C. Circuit has found that because the work product privilege does not exist to protect a confidential relationship, but rather to promote the adversary system, the mere showing of a voluntary disclosure to a third person should not suffice in itself for waiver of the work product privilege if that disclosure is not inconsistent with maintaining secrecy against opponents. United States v. AT&T, F.d, (D.C. Cir. 0. Id. at. The DC Court stated it can fairly be said that both the DOE and the relators anticipate[d] litigation against a common adversary on the same issue or issues. Id. at 0 (citation omitted. Additionally, the DC Court held that the Defendant s showing of purported need for the subject documents was not relevant, because the documents were classic opinion work-product that are protected from disclosure. Id. at, 1. --
7 III. THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE S RULING Defendant herein then sought to obtain these same documents via document requests to the Relators in this action. After Relators declined to produce these documents on the grounds of workproduct protection and other privileges, Defendant moved to compel production. On August, 00, the Magistrate Judge denied that motion. In ruling that work-product protection applied, the Magistrate Judge expressly adopted the findings of the DC Court: Def. Req. Exh. B at. for the reasons set forth by Judge Kollar-Kotelly in the detailed memorandum and order published as In re: Apollo Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, 1 FRD 1 (D.C. District Court 00, I find that the work product privilege applies to the documents that are the subject of this motion. The Magistrate Judge also rejected Defendant s argument that its putative showing of need (i.e., to attack the methods by which DoEd s Program Review was conducted should overcome that work-product protection, in part on the grounds that that argument had been rejected by the DC Court. Id. at. The Magistrate Judge further ruled that the Defendant s arguments based on a purported need for these documents failed because Defendant was already in possession of sufficient other documents with which to attack the Program Review and the PRR, from prior partial productions by DoEd. The Magistrate Judge stated that: Def. Req. Exh. B at. There is no critical or substantial need for additional evidence of relators involvement in the report process to allow defendants the ability to challenge the admissibility of that report. The challenge to the admission of the report on reliability grounds should not become a trial within a trial regarding the report itself. This exhibit is paginated in two different ways, due to electronic filing. Page number references herein refer to the numbering on the transcript itself. --
8 IV. ARGUMENT A. The Magistrate Judge Correctly Ruled That Defendant s Arguments Based On Putative Need For The Documents At Issue Is Not A Basis For Overcoming Work- Product Protection In its Request, Defendant appears to argue both that the Magistrate Judge failed to evaluate Defendant s putative need for the documents at issue and that the Magistrate Judge did evaluate Defendant s need for the documents, but according to the wrong standard. Def. Req. at -. Neither of these arguments is correct. The transcript of the Magistrate Judge s ruling makes clear that he considered Defendant s need-based arguments carefully, and rejected them on the grounds that Defendant already possesses sufficient documents that it could use for the same purpose: Def. Req. Exh. B at -. even if the sought after documents have some relevance given plaintiffs stated intention to offer the report into evidence in this case, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 0(, defendants have not demonstrated to this Court that there is a critical or substantial need for the documents they seek in order to contest the admissibility of the report sufficient to outweigh the work product protection applicable to those documents.... Here, plaintiffs and the government readily concede that the relators did play a role in focusing the Department of Education investigation. If that is sufficient to find the report unreliable, and therefore inadmissible, evidence of the relators and their counsel s involvement in that process is already available to the defendants. Moreover, the Ninth Circuit has indicated that Defendant s claims of need should, if anything, have been evaluated according to an even stricter standard. That court has held that opinion work product is not subject to discovery except when mental impressions are at issue in a case and the need for the material is compelling. Holmgren v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., F.d, (th Cir. (emphasis in original. In that case, the court found that counsel s mental impressions might be discoverable in insurance bad-faith litigation, where they are an actual element of the cause --
9 of action, but obviously no such situation exists in this case. Id.; see also Upjohn v. United States, U.S., 00-0 (1 (noting that some courts preclude discovery of opinion materials altogether; In re Murphy, 0 F.d at ( Opinion-work product enjoys a nearly absolute immunity and can be discovered only in rare and extraordinary circumstances. Defendant s further argument that the Magistrate Judge s ruling somehow denies Defendant its due process rights, Def. Req. at, is untenable. Work-product protection has been recognized for decades. See Hickman v. Taylor, U.S., 0- (. The privilege is intended to protect the adversarial trial process by insulating the attorney s preparations from scrutiny. See Jordan v. United States Dep t of Justice, 1 F.d, (D.C. Cir. (en banc. Defendant cites no case law to support the notion that the proper exercise of this protection violates due process, and there is no reason for this Court to break new ground in that regard. In any event, the Magistrate Judge found that the Defendant has enough information with which to attack the PRR if it so chooses, so in fact its rights are not constrained. B. The Magistrate Judge Correctly Found That The Documents At Issue Are Subject To Work-Product Protection Defendant contends that because certain documents voluntarily produced by DoEd do not appear to be opinion work product, the documents withheld from production must not be opinion work product either. Def. Req. at. This is a non sequitur; the contents of documents that were produced simply says nothing about the documents that were not. To the contrary, the logical assumption is that at least one reason DoEd exercised its discretionary authority to produce these documents is because they involved only fact, rather than opinion, work product. Of course, fact --
10 work product is deserving of protection as well, but in this instance the DoEd made a discretionary decision to produce that material in order to reduce its area of dispute with Apollo. This Court should also reject Defendant s attempt to argue that the United States has shifted its position as to whether the Program Review was conducted in anticipation of litigation. This argument was squarely rejected by the DC Court. The Program Review here an investigation by Department attorneys and staff into specific allegations of school misconduct was performed in anticipation of a possible administrative action brought by the Department and the litigation that in fact resulted when Apollo contested the report. Cf. Feshbach v. SEC, F. Supp. d, (N.D. Cal. (work product protection applies where administrative examination was based upon a suspicion of specific wrongdoing and represented an effort to obtain evidence and to build a case against the suspected wrongdoer, citing SafeCard Servs. v. SEC, F.d, (D.C. Cir. 1. As the DC Court ruled, [DoEd s] Declarations thus constitute strong evidence that the UOP Program Review was significantly different from ordinary DOE program reviews because it arose out of qui tam allegations and was directed and overseen by OGC attorneys who were intimately involved in designing and implementing the review process. See US SOI Exh. I at 1-1. The DC Court found that the Program Review satisfied a two-part test articulated in In re Sealed Case, 1 F.d at : [DoEd s] Declarations thus establish that the DOE actually anticipated that the UOP Program Review would lead to litigation, and thus meet the work product privilege requirement that the attorney had a subjective belief that litigation was a real possibility. [DoEd s] Declarations thus establish that the DOE actually anticipated that the UOP Program Review would lead to litigation, and thus meet the work Defendant suggests that this Court should review a sample of the documents at issue in camera. Def. Req. at. The United States certainly has no objection to this Court reviewing any or all of the subject documents, but it submits that the comprehensive rulings by the DC Court and the Magistrate Judge render such a review unnecessary. --
11 product privilege requirement that the attorney had a subjective belief that litigation was a real possibility. Id. at 1. As for the second element of the test that that belief have been objectively reasonable the DC Court extensively analyzed relevant case law and determined that the Program Review can fairly be described as an active investigation focusing upon specific events and a specific possible violation by a specific party, and thus in anticipation of litigation. Id. at (citing Safecard Servs., F.d at. See also Feshbach, F. Supp. d at ; cf. EEOC v. Lutheran Soc. Services, F.d, - (D.C. Cir. (organization undertook internal investigation because it genuinely feared litigation and not as an investigation in the ordinary course of business... looking into whether the organization was complying with the relevant laws. The DC Court also correctly rejected Defendant s claim that the Government has taken inconsistent positions as to whether the Program Review was undertaken in anticipation of litigation, because the DoEd at one time described the Program Review as routine monitoring. As the DC Court explained, Apollo s reference to the DOE s routine monitoring statement is taken out of context, because the statement was made by the DOE s FOIA Officer in the context of third party requests for a copy of the Report and did not relate to the documents underlying the Report, which Apollo now seeks in the Amended Subpoena.... In short, the Court finds that an out-of-context statement by Apollo s FOIA Officer simply does not cast doubt upon [DoEd s] averments that the UOP Program Review was not a matter of routine monitoring. See US SOI Exh. I at 1 (citation omitted. In the instant request, Defendant is attempting to resurrect the same out-of-context argument to create the false illusion of a change in position, when in fact the Government has consistently treated the Program Review as a proceeding in anticipation of litigation from its very outset. V. CONCLUSION --
12 For all the foregoing reasons, the Government submits that the Defendant s Request for Reconsideration should be denied DATED: November, 00 McGREGOR W. SCOTT United States Attorney By: /s/ KENDALL J. NEWMAN KENDALL J. NEWMAN Assistant U.S. Attorney Counsel for the United States --
Case: 1:13-cv Document #: 138 Filed: 03/31/15 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:2059
Case: 1:13-cv-01418 Document #: 138 Filed: 03/31/15 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:2059 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION LISLEWOOD CORPORATION, v. AT&T CORPORATION, AT&T
More informationCase 2:13-cv MMB Document 173 Filed 02/13/15 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:13-cv-05101-MMB Document 173 Filed 02/13/15 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA TALBOT TODD SMITH CIVIL ACTION v. NO. 13-5101 UNILIFE CORPORATION,
More informationCase 1:14-cv FB-RLM Document 492 Filed 11/17/16 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 13817
Case 1:14-cv-04717-FB-RLM Document 492 Filed 11/17/16 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 13817 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------x
More informationIN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR POLK COUNTY : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
E-FILED 2014 JAN 02 736 PM POLK - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR POLK COUNTY BELLE OF SIOUX CITY, L.P., v. Plaintiff Counterclaim Defendant MISSOURI RIVER HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT,
More informationI. INTRODUCTION. Plaintiff, AAIpharma, Inc., (hereinafter AAIpharma ), brought suit against defendants,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK < AAIPHARMA INC., : : Plaintiff, : MEMORANDUM : OPINION & ORDER - against - : : 02 Civ. 9628 (BSJ) (RLE) KREMERS URBAN DEVELOPMENT CO., et al.,
More informationCase: 2:13-cv MHW-TPK Doc #: 130 Filed: 07/08/14 Page: 1 of 9 PAGEID #: 2883
Case: 2:13-cv-00953-MHW-TPK Doc #: 130 Filed: 07/08/14 Page: 1 of 9 PAGEID #: 2883 LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF OHIO, et al., and ROBERT HART, et al., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN
More informationCase 1:15-cv PKC Document 20 Filed 03/07/16 Page 1 of 10. Plaintiffs, 15 Civ (PKC) DECLARATION OF PAUL P. COLBORN
Case 1:15-cv-09002-PKC Document 20 Filed 03/07/16 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION and AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, v.
More informationCase: 1:10-cv Document #: 189 Filed: 11/09/12 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:2937
Case: 1:10-cv-02348 Document #: 189 Filed: 11/09/12 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:2937 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION LORI WIGOD; DAN FINLINSON; and SANDRA
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE I. INTRODUCTION
Kenny v. Pacific Investment Management Company LLC et al Doc. 0 1 1 ROBERT KENNY, Plaintiff, v. PACIFIC INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT COMPANY LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; PIMCO INVESTMENTS LLC, Defendants.
More informationPrompt Remedial Action and Waiver of Privilege
Prompt Remedial Action and Waiver of Privilege by Monica L. Goebel and John B. Nickerson Workplace Harassment In order to avoid liability for workplace harassment, an employer must show that it exercised
More information231 F.R.D. 343 United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.
231 F.R.D. 343 United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. 1 Definition No. 5 provides that identify when used in regard to a communication includes providing the substance of the communication.
More informationCase 1:17-cv APM Document 49 Filed 08/16/18 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:17-cv-00144-APM Document 49 Filed 08/16/18 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) JAMES MADISON PROJECT, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No. 17-cv-00144 (APM)
More informationPeterson v. Bernardi. District of New Jersey Civil No RMB-JS (July 24, 2009)
Peterson v. Bernardi District of New Jersey Civil No. 07-2723-RMB-JS (July 24, 2009) Opinion And Order Joel Schneider, United States Magistrate Judge This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's Motion
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DISTRICT
Case: 1:09-cv-03039 Document #: 94 Filed: 04/01/11 Page 1 of 12 PageID #:953 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DISTRICT SARA LEE CORPORATION, ) ) Plaintiff,
More informationCase 1:07-cv JFA Document 400 Filed 07/12/10 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
Case 1:07-cv-00960-JFA Document 400 Filed 07/12/10 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ex rel. Oberg, ) ) Plaintiff,
More informationCase 6:09-cv GAP-TBS Document 149 Filed 08/14/12 Page 1 of 9 PageID 3714
Case 6:09-cv-01002-GAP-TBS Document 149 Filed 08/14/12 Page 1 of 9 PageID 3714 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex. rel. and ELIN BAKLID-KUNZ,
More informationCase 1:17-mc DAB Document 28 Filed 06/22/17 Page 1 of 20
Case 1:17-mc-00105-DAB Document 28 Filed 06/22/17 Page 1 of 20 Case 1:17-mc-00105-DAB Document 28 Filed 06/22/17 Page 2 of 20 but also DENIES Jones Day s Motion to Dismiss in its entirety. Applicants may
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA HELLER S GAS, INC. 415-CV-01350 Plaintiff, (Judge Brann) V. INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF HANNOVER LTD, and INTERNATIONAL
More informationSTATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS Filed 12/8/08 : : : : : : : DECISION
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS Filed 12/8/08 PROVIDENCE, SC. SUPERIOR COURT BARBARA BROKAW, RAYMOND MUTZ, TAMMY OAKLEY, and DELZA YOUNG v. DAVOL INC. and C.R. BARD, INC. C.A. No. 07-5058
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Case :-cv-00-ckj Document Filed // Page of Emilie Bell (No. 0) BELL LAW PLC 0 N. Pacesetter Way Scottsdale, Arizona Telephone: (0) - E-mail: ebell@belllawplc.com Attorney for Plaintiff Western Surety Company
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MEMORANDUM OPINION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 17-cv-00087 (CRC) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION New York
More informationCase 1:15-cv JSR Document 76 Filed 06/07/16 Page 1 of 11
Case 1:15-cv-09796-JSR Document 76 Filed 06/07/16 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------x SPENCER MEYER, individually and on behalf
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. Case No. 5D09-64
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2009 FLORIDA EYE CLINIC, P.A., Petitioner, v. Case No. 5D09-64 MARY T. GMACH, Respondent. / Opinion filed May 29, 2009.
More informationCase4:09-cv CW Document473 Filed07/27/12 Page1 of 7
Case:0-cv-000-CW Document Filed0// Page of 0 IAN GERSHENGORN Deputy Assistant Attorney General MELINDA L. HAAG United States Attorney VINCENT M. GARVEY Deputy Branch Director JOSHUA E. GARDNER District
More informationPRESERVING THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PROTECTION IN INTERNAL AND GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATIONS. Chief Counsel, Investigations
PRESERVING THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PROTECTION IN INTERNAL AND GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATIONS Eric J. Gorman Partner Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Lawrence Oliver,
More informationCase 5:05-cv RHB Document 108 Filed 09/21/2006 Page 1 of 10
Case 5:05-cv-00117-RHB Document 108 Filed 09/21/2006 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION KIMBERLY POWERS, ) ) Plaintiff,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION. Plaintiff,
Case :-cv-0-sjo-ss Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0 0 KAMALA D. HARRIS Attorney General of California PETER K. SOUTHWORTH Supervising Deputy Attorney General JONATHAN M. EISENBERG Deputy Attorney
More informationCase 2:10-cv TFM-CRE Document 99 Filed 05/31/13 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:10-cv-00131-TFM-CRE Document 99 Filed 05/31/13 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel. JASON SOBEK, Plaintiff,
More informationCase 3:05-cv MLC-JJH Document 138 Filed 09/08/2006 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Case 3:05-cv-05858-MLC-JJH Document 138 Filed 09/08/2006 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY IN RE AT&T ACCESS CHARGE : Civil Action No.: 05-5858(MLC) LITIGATION : : MEMORANDUM
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. TOYO TIRE U.S.A. CORP., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No: 14 C 206 )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS TOYO TIRE & RUBBER CO., LTD., and TOYO TIRE U.S.A. CORP., Plaintiffs, v. Case No: 14 C 206 ATTURO TIRE CORP., and SVIZZ-ONE Judge
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN DIVISION. THOMAS C. and PAMELA McINTOSH
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN DIVISION THOMAS C. and PAMELA McINTOSH PLAINTIFFS V. NO. 1:06cv1080-LTS-RHW STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY, FORENSIC
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE In re: Chapter 7 AE LIQUIDATION, INC., et al., Case No. 08-13031 (MFW Debtors. Jointly Administered JEOFFREY L. BURTCH, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE
More informationCase 2:16-cv CDJ Document 29 Filed 08/09/17 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:16-cv-04249-CDJ Document 29 Filed 08/09/17 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA BALA CITY LINE, LLC, : CIVIL ACTION Plaintiff, : : v. : No.:
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER
Case 1:17-cv-01597-CKK Document 97 Filed 03/23/18 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JANE DOE 1, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 17-cv-1597 (CKK) DONALD J. TRUMP,
More informationCase 1:17-cv JAL Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2017 Page 1 of 11
Case 1:17-cv-20301-JAL Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/12/2017 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION CASE NO. 17-cv-20301-LENARD/GOODMAN UNITED STATES
More informationCase 1:13-cv EGS Document 89 Filed 06/07/16 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:13-cv-01363-EGS Document 89 Filed 06/07/16 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JUDICIAL WATCH, INC., v. Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 13-CV-1363 (EGS) U.S. DEPARTMENT
More informationCase 1:14-cv APM Document 27 Filed 05/09/16 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:14-cv-01806-APM Document 27 Filed 05/09/16 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Competitive Enterprise Institute, Plaintiff, v. Civil No. 14-cv-01806 (APM Office
More informationHow Cos. Can Take Advantage Of DOJ False Claims Act Memo
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com How Cos. Can Take Advantage Of DOJ False
More informationCase 1:16-cv RC Document 14 Filed 09/27/17 Page 1 of 13
Case 1:16-cv-02410-RC Document 14 Filed 09/27/17 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) DYLAN TOKAR, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 16-2410 (RC) ) UNITED STATES
More informationCase 1:12-cv CKK-BMK-JDB Document 316 Filed 01/04/13 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:12-cv-00203-CKK-BMK-JDB Document 316 Filed 01/04/13 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and ERIC
More informationEscobar Provides New Grounds For Seeking Gov't Discovery
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Escobar Provides New Grounds For Seeking
More informationPROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) (1) SUPPLEMENTAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER; AND (2) REQUEST FOR PREPARATION OF FINAL JUDGMENT
Case 8:15-cv-00229-JLS-RNB Document 95 Filed 04/19/18 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:4495 Present: Honorable JOSEPHINE L. STATON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Terry Guerrero Deputy Clerk ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF:
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. Case No. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2005 KELLY MATLACK, Petitioner, v. Case No. 5D04-2978 JAMES DAY, Respondent. / Opinion filed July 15, 2005 Petition for
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO CIV-SCOLA/ROSENBAUM
ALL MOVING SERVICES, INC., a Florida corporation, v. Plaintiff, STONINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY, a Texas corporation, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 11-61003-CIV-SCOLA/ROSENBAUM
More informationCase: 1:10-cv Document #: 47 Filed: 03/07/11 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:580
Case: 1:10-cv-03361 Document #: 47 Filed: 03/07/11 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:580 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES of AMERICA ex rel. LINDA NICHOLSON,
More informationCase 3:08-cv JA Document 103 Filed 09/27/10 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
Case :0-cv-0-JA Document 0 Filed 0//0 Page of 0 BETTY ANN MULLINS, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 0 Plaintiff v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR OF PUERTO RICO, et al., Defendants
More informationCase 3:12-cv L Document 201 Filed 06/06/14 Page 1 of 12 PageID 4769
Case 3:12-cv-00853-L Document 201 Filed 06/06/14 Page 1 of 12 PageID 4769 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION MANUFACTURERS COLLECTION COMPANY, LLC, Plaintiff,
More informationCase 2:06-cv SSV-SS Document 682 Filed 10/08/10 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Case 2:06-cv-04091-SSV-SS Document 682 Filed 10/08/10 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, EX REL. BRANCH CONSULTANTS, L.L.C. VERSUS * CIVIL
More informationDartmouth College. North Branch Construction, Inc. & Lavalle/Brensinger, P.A. AND. North Branch Construction, Inc.
MERRIMACK, SS SUPERIOR COURT Dartmouth College v. North Branch Construction, Inc. & Lavalle/Brensinger, P.A. AND North Branch Construction, Inc. v. Building Envelope Solutions, Inc. d/b/a Foam Tech NO.
More informationCase 3:06-cv CDL Document 130 Filed 08/21/2009 Page 1 of 11
Case 3:06-cv-00016-CDL Document 130 Filed 08/21/2009 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATHENS DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel. DAVID L. LEWIS,
More informationINVESTIGATIONS, ATTORNEYS & PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS
INVESTIGATIONS, ATTORNEYS & PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS Wes Bearden, CEO Attorney & Licensed Investigator Bearden Investigative Agency, Inc. www.beardeninvestigations.com PRIVILEGE KEY POINTS WE ALL KNOW
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. MC JFW(SKx)
Case :-mc-000-jfw-sk Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: 0 The National Coalition of Association of -Eleven Franchisees, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiff, -Eleven,
More informationCase: 1:13-cv Document #: 419 Filed: 04/24/17 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:6761
Case: 1:13-cv-01524 Document #: 419 Filed: 04/24/17 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:6761 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION BRIAN LUCAS, ARONZO DAVIS, and NORMAN GREEN, on
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION Doc. 210 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action
More information2:14-cv RMG Date Filed 06/03/15 Entry Number 72 Page 1 of 9
2:14-cv-02567-RMG Date Filed 06/03/15 Entry Number 72 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION East Bridge Lofts Property Owners ) Civil Action
More informationAttorney Work-Product in the United States:
Attorney Work-Product in the United States: What Swiss lawyers need to know Jim Nickovich, Counsel (U.S. Attorney at Law), VISCHER AG BSW Online Marketing und Recht 1 U.S. doctrines matter to Swiss Counsel
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
Case 6:08-cv-01159-JTM -DWB Document 923 Filed 12/22/10 Page 1 of 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 08-1159-JTM
More informationCase: 1:10-cv Document #: 51 Filed: 05/25/11 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:235
Case: 1:10-cv-05473 Document #: 51 Filed: 05/25/11 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:235 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION KIFAH MUSTAPHA, v. Plaintiff, JONATHAN E. MONKEN,
More informationCase 3:17-cv WHA Document 1349 Filed 08/24/17 Page 1 of 22 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Case :-cv-00-wha Document Filed 0// Page of 0 0 KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP ROBERT A. VAN NEST - # 0 rvannest@keker.com RACHAEL E. MENY - # rmeny@keker.com JENNIFER A. HUBER - # 0 jhuber@keker.com JO
More informationThe New DOJ Cooperation Standards: Do New Standards Change Anything?
PROGRAM MATERIALS Program #1875 September 16, 2008 The New DOJ Cooperation Standards: Do New Standards Change Anything? Copyright 2008 by Thomas O. Gorman, Esq. All Rights Reserved. Licensed to Celesq,
More informationCase 2:16-cv CB Document 103 Filed 01/18/18 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:16-cv-00538-CB Document 103 Filed 01/18/18 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA LAMBETH MAGNETIC STRUCTURES, LLC, Plaintiff, Civil Action No.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA PEBBLE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ) ) Plaintiff, ) vs. ) ) ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ) AGENCY, et al., ) ) No. 3:14-cv-0171-HRH Defendants. ) ) O
More informationRecent Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Mississippi Bar Convention Summer School for Lawyers 2016
Recent Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure The Mississippi Bar Convention Summer School for Lawyers 2016 History The impetus to change these Rules was the May 2010 Conference on Civil Litigation
More informationProcedure for Pretrial Conferences in the Federal Courts
Wyoming Law Journal Volume 3 Number 4 Article 2 January 2018 Procedure for Pretrial Conferences in the Federal Courts Edson R. Sunderland Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.uwyo.edu/wlj
More informationCorporate Depositions: Limiting In-House Counsel Depos and Selecting/Preparing Employees for 30(b)(6) Depos
Kansas Missouri Corporate Depositions: Limiting In-House Counsel Depos and Selecting/Preparing Employees for 30(b)(6) Depos February 15, 2017 Association of Corporate Counsel Mid-America Chapter Preventing
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 12-1190 MAY n n -. ' wi y b AIA i-eaersl P ublic Def. --,-icj habeas Unit "~^upf5n_courrosr ~ FILED MAY 1-2013 OFFICE OF THE CLERK IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES " : " ;".';.", > '*,-T.
More informationCase 5:14-cv JPJ-JCH Document 27 Filed 01/14/15 Page 1 of 9 Pageid#: 204
Case 5:14-cv-00040-JPJ-JCH Document 27 Filed 01/14/15 Page 1 of 9 Pageid#: 204 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Harrisonburg Division ANTHONY WADE GALLOWAY, ) Plaintiff,
More informationThe attorney-client privilege
BY TIMOTHY J. MILLER AND ANDREW P. SHELBY TIMOTHY J. MILLER is partner and general counsel at Novack and Macey LLP. As co-chair of the firm s legal malpractice defense group, he represents law firms and
More informationTHE RHODE ISLAND DEPARTMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL S PARTIAL OBJECTION TO SUBPOENA
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND PROVIDENCE, SC. SUPERIOR COURT St. Joseph Health Services of Rhode Island, Inc., : : : vs. : C.A. No. 2017-3856 : St. Josephs Health Services of Rhode Island : Retirement Plan, as
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 08-00437 (RCL DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,
More informationASSERTING, CONTESTING, AND PRESERVING PRIVILEGES UNDER THE NEW RULES OF DISCOVERY
UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON LAW FOUNDATION CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION ADVANCED CIVIL DISCOVERY UNDER THE NEW RULES June 1-2, 2000 Dallas, Texas June 8-9, 2000 Houston, Texas ASSERTING, CONTESTING, AND PRESERVING
More informationCase 1:06-cv GK Document 37 Filed 09/05/2008 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:06-cv-01080-GK Document 37 Filed 09/05/2008 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVE, Plaintiff, v. No. 06cv01080 (GK THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE
More informationGENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2011 H 1 HOUSE BILL 380. Short Title: Amend RCP/Electronically Stored Information.
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 0 H 1 HOUSE BILL 0 Short Title: Amend RCP/Electronically Stored Information. (Public) Sponsors: Representatives Glazier, T. Moore, Ross, and Jordan (Primary Sponsors).
More informationState's Objections to Discovery and Motion for Protective Order
Cleveland State University EngagedScholarship@CSU 19952002 Court Filings 2000 Trial 7281999 State's Objections to Discovery and Motion for Protective Order William D. Mason Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Marilyn
More informationCase3:14-mc JD Document1 Filed10/30/14 Page1 of 13
Case:-mc-00-JD Document Filed/0/ Page of DAVID H. KRAMER, State Bar No. ANTHONY J WEIBELL, State Bar No. 0 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI Professional Corporation 0 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 0-0 Telephone:
More informationDoes a Civil Protective Order Protect a Company s Foreign Based Documents from Being Produced in a Related Criminal Investigation?
Does a Civil Protective Order Protect a Company s Foreign Based Documents from Being Produced in a Related Criminal Investigation? Contributed by Thomas P. O Brien and Daniel Prince, Paul Hastings LLP
More informationPublic Records Act Requests and Pending Litigation
Public Records Act Requests and Pending Litigation Presented to October 4, 2012 John T. Kennedy, Partner Public Records Act Request While Lawsuit is Pending The fact that a lawsuit is pending does not
More informationCase 1:10-cv RMU Document 25 Filed 07/22/11 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case 1:10-cv-02119-RMU Document 25 Filed 07/22/11 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ANTHONY SHAFFER, v. Plaintiff, DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, et al., Defendants.
More informationCase 1:10-cv RMC Document 50 Filed 01/23/13 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:10-cv-02119-RMC Document 50 Filed 01/23/13 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ANTHONY SHAFFER * * Plaintiff, * * v. * * Civil Action No: 10-2119 (RMC) DEFENSE
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION
Case: 4:14-cv-01421-AGF Doc. #: 75 Filed: 06/23/15 Page: 1 of 15 PageID #: 574 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION KIRBY PEMBERTON, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v.
More informationWHAT S HAPPENING TO THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND WORK PRODUCT DOCTRINE?
WHAT S HAPPENING TO THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND WORK PRODUCT DOCTRINE? PROPOSED FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 502 THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE PROTECTION ACT OF 2007 THE MCNULTY MEMORANDUM DABNEY CARR
More informationResolution Through the Courts TEI Audits & Appeals Seminar
Resolution Through the Courts TEI Audits & Appeals Seminar May 3, 2018 Carley Roberts Partner Tim Gustafson Counsel 2018 (US) LLP All Rights Reserved. This communication is for general informational purposes
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. CASE NO. 5D02-289
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2002 VESTA FIRE INSURANCE, ETC. Petitioner, v. CASE NO. 5D02-289 GLADYS FIGUEROA, Respondent. / Opinion filed July 26, 2002
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
0 0 Collette C. Leland, WSBA No. 0 WINSTON & CASHATT, LAWYERS, a Professional Service Corporation 0 W. Riverside, Ste. 00 Spokane, WA 0 Telephone: (0) - Attorneys for Maureen C. VanderMay and The VanderMay
More informationCase 1:17-cv WYD-MEH Document 9 Filed 09/22/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 9 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Case 1:17-cv-02280-WYD-MEH Document 9 Filed 09/22/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 9 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-02280-WYD-MEH ME2 PRODUCTIONS, INC.,
More informationCASE NO. 1D J. Stephen O'Hara, Jr., Jeffrey J. Humphries, Kathryn N. Slade of O'Hara Harlvorsen Humphries, PA, Jacksonville, for Petitioner.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA MELINDA BUTLER, v. Petitioner, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D14-1342
More informationCase 1:07-cv RBW Document 7 Filed 06/09/2008 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:07-cv-02306-RBW Document 7 Filed 06/09/2008 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA THE JAMES MADISON PROJECT, and MATTHEW COLE, Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 1:07cv02306
More informationCase 1:04-cv EGS Document 9 Filed 01/21/2005 Page 1 of 14
Case 1:04-cv-01612-EGS Document 9 Filed 01/21/2005 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) BUSH-CHENEY 04, INC. ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) No. 04:CV-01612 (EGS) v. ) ) FEDERAL
More informationCase 3:11-cv DPJ -FKB Document 26 Filed 01/05/12 Page 1 of 10
Case 3:11-cv-00332-DPJ -FKB Document 26 Filed 01/05/12 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI JACKSON DIVISION AUGUSTUS P. SORIANO PLAINTIFF V. CIVIL
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Aubin et al v. Columbia Casualty Company et al Doc. 140 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA WILLIAM J. AUBIN, ET AL. VERSUS CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-290-BAJ-EWD COLUMBIA CASUALTY COMPANY,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STEVEN J. HATFILL, M.D., Plaintiff, Case No. 1:03-CV-01793 (RBW v. ALBERTO GONZALES ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al., Defendants. REPLY MEMORANDUM
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. Plaintiffs, Defendants.
Nance v. May Trucking Company et al Doc. 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 1 SCOTT NANCE and FREDERICK FREEDMAN, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and
More informationCase 1:09-mc JMF Document 69 Filed 09/27/12 Page 1 of 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:09-mc-00564-JMF Document 69 Filed 09/27/12 Page 1 of 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, : : Petitioner, : : v. : Misc. Action No. 09-564 (JMF)
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LEROY BOLDEN ET AL. CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO
Case 2:06-cv-04171-HGB-JCW Document 53 Filed 01/14/2008 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LEROY BOLDEN ET AL. CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 06-4171 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
More informationAttorney s BriefCase Beyond the Basics Depositions in Family Law Matters
Attorney s BriefCase Beyond the Basics Depositions in Family Law Matters Code of Civil Procedure 1985.8 Subpoena seeking electronically stored information (a)(1) A subpoena in a civil proceeding may require
More informationPreparing the Lawyer to Be the Witness
Preparing the Lawyer to Be the Witness Presented by Sam Ramer (Counsel and VP, Government Relations, Symplicity Corporation), Leslie B. Kiernan (Partner, Akin Gump), Kristine L. Sendek-Smith (Partner,
More informationCase 1:11-cv AJT-TRJ Document 171 Filed 01/23/15 Page 1 of 13 PageID# 2168
Case 1:11-cv-00050-AJT-TRJ Document 171 Filed 01/23/15 Page 1 of 13 PageID# 2168 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION ) GULET MOHAMED, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STATE OF NEW YORK, et al., Plaintiffs v. Civil Action No. 98-1233 (CKK) MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION This case comes before
More informationCase: 4:11-cv JAR Doc. #: 93 Filed: 04/20/17 Page: 1 of 7 PageID #: 710
Case: 4:11-cv-00523-JAR Doc. #: 93 Filed: 04/20/17 Page: 1 of 7 PageID #: 710 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT ) OF AMERICAN RIVER
More informationCase 1:17-cv KPF Document 39 Filed 10/04/17 Page 1 of 19 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Case 1:17-cv-02542-KPF Document 39 Filed 10/04/17 Page 1 of 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK... x KATE DOYLE, NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVE, CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS
More information