DUPLAN CORP. V. MOULINAGE ET RETORDERIE DE CHAVANOZ
509 F.2d 730, cert denied, 420 U.S. 997 (1975)
NATURE OF THE CASE: This was a dispute over discovery of attorney work product.
FACTS: Duplan (P) sued Chavanoz (D) over patent and antitrust issues. P sought discovery
of D's attorney settlement agreements with Leesona Corporation and information relating to
D's knowledge of prior art involved with its patents. From the directive of an earlier
appeal the court examined documents and ordered 105 of them produced. D objected in that
some of them contained mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, and legal theories of
attorneys. The district court ordered production despite this objection in that P
demonstrated substantial need and undue hardship and that even though Rule 26(b)(3) accords
an absolute privilege during litigation, that immunity ceased after litigation.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment