In Re Grand Jury (Impounded)

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that a waiver occurred where party’s assertion of the privilege to his adversary was insufficient to prevent the adversary’s continuing use of the privileged material
• describing counsel’s efforts, in telephone discussions and letters, to convince opposing party that seized documents included attorney work product and attorney-client privileged information
• finding waiver of attorney work product where suspect failed to take reasonable steps to preserve privilege of inadvertently disclosed documents, while relying on attorney-client privilege cases
• affirming a district court’s finding of waiver where the privilege holder waited nearly four months to seek judicial relief after learning that the government obtained allegedly privileged material from a third party
• discussing “inadvertent or involuntary disclosures” of of the Federal Rules of Evidence. See, e.g., George Washington Univ., 2020 WL 3489478, at . Finally, the EEOC’s argument ignores the principle that, once a litigant makes a claim of privilege pursuant to Rule 26(b)(5)(B
• “[Work-product] protection also can extend to materials prepared by an attorney’s agent, if that agent acts at the attorney’s direction in creating such documents.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).