Gutshall v. New Prime, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that evidence used solely for impeachment falls within the broad scope of Rule 26 and must be disclosed
• finding evidence discoverable despite the party’s intention to only use it for impeachment purposes because impeachment evidence “falls within the broad scope of Rule 26(b)(1)”
• disclosure of surveillance materials required when defendant intended to use those materials for impeachment purposes at trial
• “The work product doctrine is not a ‘privilege,’ but a sort of ‘qualified immunity’ from discovery, originally established in Hickman v. Taylor, and ultimately codified in Rule 26(b)(3).”
• “New Prime prepared, or commissioned the preparation of, the surveillance materials in anticipation of trial in this case. Consequently, those materials constitute ‘work product’ that New Prime ordinarily would not be compelled to produce”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Newsome v. PENSKE TRUCK LEASING CORPORATION
  D. Maryland· 2006-05-24· cited 18×
• Lopez v. Woolever
  Fairfax County Circuit Court· 2003-06-25· cited 9×
• Gardner v. Norfolk Southern Corp.
  D. New Jersey· 2014-04-17· cited 3×
• Morganti v. Ace Tire & Parts Inc.
  Alleghany County Court of Common Pleas· 2004-12-28· cited 1×
• Unnamed case
  Court of Appeals of Iowa· 2014-10-29
• Webb v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.
  Nottoway County Circuit Court· 2013-02-15

Cites

11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Hickman v. Taylor
  Supreme Court· 1947-01-13· cited 4,981×
• Betty U. Chiasson v. Zapata Gulf Marine Corporation
  Fifth Circuit· 1993-03-31· cited 106×
• Snead v. American Export-Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc.
  E.D. Pennsylvania· 1973-03-28· cited 59×
• Blount v. Wake Electric Membership Corp.
  E.D. North Carolina· 1993-09-23· cited 34×
• Martin v. Long Island Rail Road
  E.D. New York· 1974-05-06· cited 31×
• Smith v. Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc.
  S.D. Texas· 1996-08-27· cited 25×
• Ward v. CSX Transportation, Inc.
  E.D. North Carolina· 1995-03-22· cited 16×
• Boyle v. CSX Transportation, Inc.
  S.D. West Virginia· 1992-07-17· cited 15×
• Gibson v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.
  E.D. Pennsylvania· 1997-02-10· cited 14×
• Ford v. CSX Transportation, Inc.
  E.D. North Carolina· 1995-01-09· cited 8×
• Denty v. CSX Transportation, Inc.
  E.D. North Carolina· 1996-08-30· cited 6×