Jordan v. Dilley

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 proper standard of review of discovery orders is the ‘clearly erroneous or contrary to law’ standard” (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)
• holding that a reviewing court is limited to the record before the initial tribunal
• noting that a federal circuit court of appeals may order judicial reassignment when necessary “to avoid both bias and the appearance of bias”
• stating that the party to the privilege has the absolute right to be heard by evidence and argument
• noting that “the decision to engage in in camera review implicates a much more lenient standard of proof than the determination to apply the crime/fraud exception, as the intrusion on the asserted privilege is minimal”
• requiring “evidence which, if believed by the fact-finder, would be sufficient to support a finding that the elements of the crime-fraud exception were met”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).