Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitlitigationattorneydiscoverytrialmotioncorporationwrit of mandamusattorney-client privilegepiracy
lawsuitlitigationattorneydiscoverycorporationwrit of mandamusattorney-client privilegepiracy

Related Cases

Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc. v. Home Indem. Co., Not Reported in F.Supp., 1991 WL 78200, 20 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1479
View Case »
U.S. ex rel. Wilcox v. Johnson, 555 F.2d 115
View Case »
Dike v. Dike, 75 Wash.2d 1, 448 P.2d 490
View Case »
Roadway Exp., Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 100 S.Ct. 2455, 65 L.Ed.2d 488, 23 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 12, 23 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 31,025, 29 Fed.R.Serv.2d 733
View Case »
Torrey v. Leesburg Regional Medical Center, 769 So.2d 1040, 25 Fla. L. Weekly S911
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Diversified Industries, Inc. v. Meredith, 572 F.2d 596, 23 Fed.R.Serv.2d 1473, 24 Fed.R.Serv.2d 1201, 1977-2 Trade Cases P 61,591, 1978-1 Trade Cases P 61,879

Facts

Diversified Industries, Inc., a Delaware corporation, was involved in a lawsuit initiated by Weatherhead Company, which alleged unlawful conspiracy and other claims against Diversified. In response to prior litigation and SEC investigations, Diversified hired the law firm Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering to investigate its business practices. The firm prepared a preliminary memorandum and a detailed report, which Diversified sought to protect from discovery by Weatherhead. Weatherhead had attempted to obtain these documents through pretrial interrogatories and motions for production, which Diversified objected to, leading to the mandamus proceeding.

Diversified Industries, Inc., a Delaware corporation, was involved in a lawsuit initiated by Weatherhead Company, which alleged unlawful conspiracy and other claims against Diversified. In response to prior litigation and SEC investigations, Diversified hired the law firm Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering to investigate its business practices.

Issue

The main legal issues were whether the memorandum and report prepared by the law firm were protected from discovery under attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine.

The main legal issues were whether the memorandum and report prepared by the law firm were protected from discovery under attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine.

Rule

The court applied the attorney-client privilege, which protects confidential communications between a client and attorney, and the work product doctrine, which protects materials prepared in anticipation of litigation.

The court applied the attorney-client privilege, which protects confidential communications between a client and attorney, and the work product doctrine, which protects materials prepared in anticipation of litigation.

Analysis

The court determined that the June 19, 1975, memorandum did not contain confidential information and was not protected by attorney-client privilege. The December 1975 report, while containing mental impressions and conclusions, was not prepared in anticipation of litigation, as the law firm was not retained to provide legal services but rather to conduct a business investigation. Therefore, the court concluded that neither document was entitled to protection.

The court determined that the June 19, 1975, memorandum did not contain confidential information and was not protected by attorney-client privilege. The December 1975 report, while containing mental impressions and conclusions, was not prepared in anticipation of litigation, as the law firm was not retained to provide legal services but rather to conduct a business investigation.

Conclusion

The court denied the petition for a writ of mandamus, affirming that the documents in question were not protected from discovery.

The court denied the petition for a writ of mandamus, affirming that the documents in question were not protected from discovery.

Who won?

Weatherhead Company prevailed in the case as the court ruled that the documents sought were not protected by attorney-client or work product privileges.

Weatherhead Company prevailed in the case as the court ruled that the documents sought were not protected by attorney-client or work product privileges.

You must be