Harland Clarke Holdings Corp. v. Milken

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the Illinois attorney-client privilege protects an indemnitee’s communications with its attorneys “to the extent that such communications deal with issues of indemnification”
• summarizing that “the common interest doctrine abrogated opinion work product protection between an insurer and insured ‘with respect to documents prepared solely for the underlying litigation.’ ”
• analyzing first whether the work product protection applied and then whether the protection was waived or whether the requesting party had demonstrated a need for the materials
• noting the distinction between fact work-product and opinion work-product, the latter of which reveals an attorney’s mental impressions, theories, conclusions, or opinions about the case, such that it “can rarely, if ever, be discoverable”
• decision to deny privilege turned primarily on cooperation clause in the parties’ agreement that concerned indemnification for third-party claims but also relied upon the common-interest doctrine
• decision to deny privilege turned primarily on cooperation clause in the parties’ agreement that concerned indemnification for third-party claims but also relied upon the common-interest doctrine

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).