Doe v. Merten

How courts have described this case

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

• “[C]laiming that the events alleged in the . . . [c]omplaint actually occurred . . . [cannot] possibly [] put [a privileged document] ‘at issue.’”
• work product protection applied to document “prepared or obtained because of the prospect of litigation”
• private investigator’s report that included his findings based on interviews with witnesses subject to work product protection
• report compiled by private investigator retained by counsel in anticipation of litigation that records the investigator’s findings based on his interviews of witnesses to the incidents alleged in the complaint protected by work product doctrine
• “The work product doctrine protects not only materials which are prepared by attorneys themselves, but also by their agents. . . . includ[ing] those who are enlisted by legal counsel to perform investigative or analytical tasks to aid counsel in preparing for litigation”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).