Appleton Papers, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the government did not “expose the enchanted nature of the information” sought
• observing that Rule 26(b)(4)(D) “shows that facts and opinions alike are protected and therefore not separable”
• observing that Rule 26(b)(4)(D) “shows that facts and opinions alike are protected and therefore not separable”
• holding “there is no doubt that the government waived work product immunity for the portions of the documents it did use in the two consent decrees”
• rejecting the plaintiff’s argument that “the district court erred by allowing the government to use the portions of the consultant’s opinions that it believes are helpful, while hiding the analysis and the complete opinions from the public view”
• “‘Fact’ work product is discoverable in the rare case where [a] party makes the ‘substantial need’ showing.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).