Jefferis v. Alcoa Steamship Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the facts demonstrated that tite plaintiff and “the non-party lenders had, in fact, reasonably anticipated litigation at the time the communications were made”
• holding that “where the underlying communication is not protected by the attorney-client privilege or the attorney work-product doctrine, the common interest doctrine does not apply” (internal citations omitted)
• explaining that Walsh, where “one of the parties first discussed the information with its attorney and then shared the information with the other party (not the other party’s counsel),” had no bearing on the interpretation of Schwim-mer
• “… it is immaterial that the confidential communications passed from Nordbank's counsel directly to the non-party lenders rather than passing from Nordbank or its counsel to the non-party lenders' attorneys.”
• “Although communications between client and counsel relating to legal advice are generally privileged, the privilege is waived where such communications are made . . . in the known presence of a third party.”
• no waiver under four-factor test and “completely reckless” standard

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).