Lindoerfer v. J. C. Penney 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 an accident report prepared by Carnival nine days after the incident was protected by the work-product doctrine because the primary purpose was to aid Carnival in possible future litigation
• explaining that “[u]nless the affidavit is precise to bring the document within the rule, the Court has no basis on which to weigh the applicability of the privilege at all”
• explaining that the burden to sustain a work product claim is “heavy” because “privileges are not lightly created nor expansively construed, for they are in derogation of the search for the truth”
• first quoting In re Bonanno, 344 F.2d 830, 833 (2d Cir. 1965), then citing United States v. Osborn, 561 F.2d 1334, 1339 (9th Cir. 1977)
• “[A] witness statement taken by a party’s attorney or agent in anticipation of litigation is protected work product.”
• “This ‘primary motivating purpose’ language has been cited innumerable times by courts within this Circuit, and appears to be the standard followed in this Circuit.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).