Julian v. Safelite Glass Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• ruling that, despite a privilege objection, “the witness is nevertheless required to answer questions relevant to the existence, extent, or waiver of the privilege/immunity, such as the date of a communication, who made it, to whom it has been disclosed, and its general subject matter”
• relying on Williams to find that “defendants have not impliedly waived the attorney-client privilege by placing advice of counsel at issue through . . . deposition testimony”
• “If a party fails to make the required showing, by not producing a privilege log or by providing an inadequate one, the court may deem the privilege waived.”
• “[T]he subject matter of meetings with an attorney, the persons present, the location of the meetings, or the persons arranging the meetings are . . . not protected by the privilege.”
• “There is a distinction between a conference with counsel and a conference at which counsel is present; the mere presence of counsel at a meeting does not make all communications during the meeting privileged.”
• “There is a distinction between a conference with counsel and a conference at which counsel is present; the mere presence of counsel at a meeting does not make all communications during the meeting privileged.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).