Ellis-Foster Co. v. Union Carbide Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that party failed to establish WPP where it did not “provide a witness to attest to the question of what [the party] would have done had there been no threat of litigation”
• finding no work-product privilege where moving party failed “to provide a witness to attest to the question of what [the party] ‘would have’ done had there been no threat of litigation”
• finding no work-product protection where a party failed to provide evidence of what it would have done without the threat of litigation
• denying privilege claim where the allegedly protected documents were not identified such that the asserting party could not meet its burden of showing privilege’s applicability
• “[S]tate law governs the question of attorney-client privilege in a diversity action . . . .”
• “Because this Court's subject matter jurisdiction is based upon diversity, state law provides the rule of decision concerning the claim of attorney-client privilege.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).