In re Syncor Erisa Litigation

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that acquiring corporation’s “initial 12 review of [target corporation’s] operations was solely for the business purpose of a potential 13 merger” and therefore not protected by the attorney-client privilege
• documents prepared during due diligence review as the prior to acquisition did not “fall within the ambit of the attorney-client privilege” . . . as they were created “solely for the business purpose of a potential merger.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

7 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Nidec Corp. v. Victor Co. of Japan
  N.D. California· 2007-07-05· cited 57×
• Louen v. Twedt
  E.D. California· 2006-06-06· cited 24×
• National Academy of Recording Arts & Sciences, Inc. v. On Point Events, LP.
  C.D. California· 2009-02-25· cited 24×
• Kandel v. Brother International Corp.
  C.D. California· 2010-02-01· cited 20×
• Lawrence E. Jaffe Pension Plan v. Household International, Inc.
  N.D. Illinois· 2006-12-06· cited 12×
• Bozzuto v. Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP
  C.D. California· 2009-02-04· cited 3×
• Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
  N.D. California· 2017-04-10· cited 1×

Cites

50 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

• Hickman v. Taylor
  Supreme Court· 1947-01-13· cited 4,981×
• Upjohn Co. v. United States
  Supreme Court· 1981-01-13· cited 3,227×
• Fisher v. United States
  Supreme Court· 1976-04-21· cited 2,033×
• Hoffman v. United States
  Supreme Court· 1951-05-28· cited 1,874×
• Lefkowitz v. Turley
  Supreme Court· 1973-11-19· cited 1,102×
• United States v. Zolin
  Supreme Court· 1989-06-21· cited 923×
• Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Weintraub
  Supreme Court· 1985-04-29· cited 753×
• Harold D. Blankenship, an Individual v. The Hearst Corporation, a Corporation, William H. Myers, an Individual
  Ninth Circuit· 1975-06-26· cited 521×
• Doe v. United States
  Supreme Court· 1988-06-22· cited 420×
• McCarthy v. Arndstein
  Supreme Court· 1924-10-20· cited 393×
• Diversified Industries, Inc. v. The Honorable James H. Meredith, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
  Eighth Circuit· 1978-02-05· cited 384×
• United States v. Hubbell
  Supreme Court· 2000-06-05· cited 375×
• Braswell v. United States
  Supreme Court· 1988-06-22· cited 345×
• Trevino v. Celanese Corp.
  Fifth Circuit· 1983-03-28· cited 299×
• Lawrence S. Bittaker v. Jeanne S. Woodford, Warden, California State Prison of San Quentin
  Ninth Circuit· 2003-06-06· cited 275×
• In Re Grand Jury Investigation. United States of America v. The Corporation 1
  Ninth Circuit· 1992-08-31· cited 224×
• Jane Doe, a Minor, by and Through Her Guardian and Mother, Alisa Rudy-Glanzer v. Elroy \Bud\ Glazer, an Individual
  Ninth Circuit· 2000-11-17· cited 219×
• United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Curtis R. Martin, Jr., Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee
  Ninth Circuit· 2002-03-13· cited 183×
• Julie Holmgren v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Julie Holmgren v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
  Ninth Circuit· 1992-11-09· cited 182×
• United States v. Raymond M. Gray
  Ninth Circuit· 1989-06-05· cited 181×