Isaac Soleimani and INE Soleimani LP v. Andre Hakkak

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a “party also does not demonstrate substantial need when it merely seeks corroborative evidence”
• reasoning that attorney notes reveal the attorney's legal conclusions because, when taking notes, attorneys focus on those facts they deem legally relevant
• reasoning that attorney notes reveal the attorney’s legal conclusions because, when taking notes, attorneys focus on those facts they deem legally relevant
• explaining “[a]ttorney notes reveal an attorney’s legal conclusions because, when taking notes, an attorney focuses on those facts which she deems legally significant.”
• applying state law to attorney-client privilege issues because the federal court sat in diversity jurisdiction
• distinguishing between “ordinary” and “opinion” work product, on the ground that the former involves only “raw factual information,” while the latter involves mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).