Birch v. Local Selective Service Board No. 63

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that automatically cloaking independently discoverable attachments in privilege would “abrogate the well-established rule that only the communications, not underlying facts, are privileged”
• stating that attachments which do not, by their content, fall within the realm of the privilege cannot become privileged by merely attaching them to a communication with the attorney
• “Funneling papers past corporate counsel will not shield the communications from disclosure”
• privilege rejected because much of information in draft applications could be found in public record of research of defendant
• “Attachments which do not, by their content, fall within the realm of the privilege cannot become privileged by merely attaching them to a communication with an attorney.”
• “Attachments which do not, by their content, fall within the realm of the privilege cannot become privileged by merely attaching them to a communication with an attorney.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).