Blakney v. Montana

How courts have described this case

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

• finding neither the attorney-client privilege nor the work product doctrine applicable
• “[D]epending upon how questions are phrased to the witness, deposition questions may tend to elicit the impressions of counsel about the relative significance of the facts; opposing counsel is not entitled to his adversaries’ thought processes.”
• Attorney work product doctrine does not protect “facts [30(b)(6) deponent] was aware of which supported a particular allegation in the answer and counterclaim.”
• “There is simply nothing wrong with asking for facts from a deponent even though those facts may have been communicated to the deponent by the deponent’s counsel.”
• “[T]here is simply nothing wrong with asking for facts from a deponent even though those facts may have been communicated to the deponent by the deponent’s counsel.”
• court refused to force plaintiff to use contention interrogatories in lieu of Rule 30(b)(6) testimony where deponent was an accountant and, therefore, had the experience necessary to explain issues

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).