In Re Professionals Direct Insurance

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that “anticipated litigation” must be the “driving force behind the preparation of each requested document” (quoting Roxworthy, 457 F.3d at 595)
• finding that a party’s general arguments that documents were both for business purposes and for litigation purposes were not enough to satisfy their burden
• denying mandamus relief where party sought review of order requiring disclosure of information the party believed was protected by the work product doctrine
• denying mandamus relief where party sought review of order requiring disclosure of information the party believed was protected by the work product doctrine
• upholding district court’s determination of a “constructive denial date” under Boone, finding this application of Boone was not “clearly erroneous as a matter of law”
• listing five balancing factors to consider when deciding whether to issue the writ

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).