Flores v. Matson Nav. Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that police department’s 1 internal affairs investigations were not work-product protected because they are performed 2 in the regular course of business
• finding police department’s internal affairs investigations are not work- 26 27 7 This omission is noteworthy because Plaintiff has submitted evidence that the County 28 1 product protected because they are performed in the regular course of business
• “This balancing test has been moderately pre-weighted in favor of disclosure.”
• a 4 party may sustain its burden of asserting attorney-client privilege by producing an index or 5 list identifying privileged documents that includes, among other things, each document’s 6 “primary addressee . . . [and] secondary addressee(s
• “Based on these cases, experience has demonstrated that 4 the following list of items are sufficient to sustain the burden of asserting the attorney- 5 client privilege: 1. Date of documents; 2. Author; 3. Primary addressee; 4. Secondary 6 addressee(s
• “[T]he party must submit, at the time it files and serves its response to the discovery request, a declaration or affidavit, under oath or subject to the penalty of perjury, from the head of the department which has control over the matter.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).