Maxxam Group Inc. v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, if there is even some ambiguity as to whether a dual-capacity expert might have 'considered' the materials allegedly protected by the work-product privilege in his capacity as a testifying expert, then the materials are discoverable
• ordering disclosure of documents the expert “reviewed historically” as a consultant because it was “impossible to segregate [the expert’s] role as a business consultant who advised [the party] regarding many aspects of the litigation with his role as a testifying expert”
• communication between a corporation’s CEO and its accountant not protected by the attorney-client privilege

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).