Skip to main content
N.D. Illinois· 8/10/2000

Caremark, Inc. v. Affiliated Computer Services, Inc.

Citations

  • 195 F.R.D. 610
  • 47 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 1117
  • 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11579
  • 2000 WL 1141074

How courts have described this case

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

  • explaining that documents prepared in the ordinary course of business are not subject to the work product privilege
  • describing Rule 26(b)(3) as applying “only to tangibles and codif[ying] that portion of the Hickman opinion that relates to documents. Hickman v. Taylor and other common law developments also govern intangibles, such as interviews.”
  • a document “analyzing the likely outcome of ... litigation ... does not lose protection merely because it is also created in order to assist with a business decision.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Denlow

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

29 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

14 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Caremark, Inc. v. Affiliated Computer Services, Inc.

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.