Marshalls of MA, Inc. v. Minsal

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 party asserting the work-product privilege must present substantial, competent evidence in the form of testimony or evidence to establish that the requested incident reports were prepared in anticipation of litigation
• holding that the party asserting the work-product privilege must present substantial, competent evidence in the form of testimony or evidence to establish that the requested incident reports were prepared in anticipation of litigation
• comparing the foreseeability standard adopted by the First, Second, Third, and Fifth Districts with the “substantial and imminent” standard adopted by the Fourth District
• “Incident reports may be prepared for a purpose other than in anticipation of litigation, and when this is so, the reports are not work product.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).