In Re Grand Jury Subpoena Dated July 6, 2005

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that prosecutors have a “duty to respect attorney–client privilege”
• recognizing that prosecutors have a “duty to respect attorney–client privilege”
• “The party invoking the [work product doctrine] bears the heavy burden of establishing its applicability”
• “It is clear that the work product doctrine applies to grand jury proceedings, but arguably less clear what species of work product protection a court should apply.”
• “To be entitled to protection for opinion work product, the party asserting the privilege must show ‘a real, rather than speculative, concern’ that the work product will reveal counsel’s thought processes ‘in relation to pending or anticipated litigation.’ ”
• “To be entitled to protection for opinion work product, the party asserting the privilege must show a real, rather than speculative, concern that the work product will reveal counsel’s thought processes in relation to pending or anticipated litigation.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).