In Re Grand Jury Subpoena Dated October 22, 2001. John Doe, A, John Doe, B, John Doe, C, Movant-Appellants v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• quashing subpoena that would have required attorney testimony violating work product doctrine
• quashing subpoena that would have required attorney testimony 6 violating work product doctrine
• quashing subpoena that would have required attorney testimony 6 violating work product doctrine
• “Broad categorical statements about the scope of the work product privilege are risky, as individual applications are highly fact specific.”
• “Broad categorical statements about the scope of the work product privilege are risky, as individual applications are highly fact specific.”
• “For the attorney to be subpoenaed to testify to the observations made in the course of [litigation] preparation in order to help the putative adversary . . . would do substantial injury to the values that justify the work product doctrine.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).