In Re Martin Marietta Corporation, United States of America v. William C. Pollard

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that by disclosing documents to government, party impliedly waived work product privilege as to all non-opinion work product on the same subject matter disclosed, but subject matter waiver rule does not apply to opinion work product
• noting that a party “impliedly waived the work-product privilege as to all non-opinion work-product on the same subject matter as that disclosed.”
• discussing the “Sixth Amendment guarantee that an accused have compulsory process to secure evidence in his favor”
• upholding district court's order compelling production of materials under 17(c) because district court properly determined that subpoena satisfied Nixon requirements after in camera production of documents, but remanding for in camera review as to claims of work-product privilege
• upholding district court’s order compelling production of materials under 17(c) because district court properly determined that subpoena satisfied Nixon requirements after in camera production of documents, but remanding for in camera review as to claims of work-product privilege
• finding a regulatory disclosure of work product “impliedly waived the work product privilege as to all non- opinion work product on the same subject matter as that disclosed” but not to opinion work product

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).