Must v. Wilkinson

How courts have described this case

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

• addressing fiduciary exception in partnership dispute but ultimately deeming it inapplicable because the contested materials related to non-fiduciary matters
• “common interest” analysis requires that the disclosure “is not inconsistent with maintaining secrecy from their adversary”
• disclosure of work papers required by Rule 26, notwithstanding work product protection, because expert considered and specifically referred to the work papers in his expert report
• disclosure of work papers required by Rule 26, notwithstanding work product protection, because expert considered and specifically referred to the work papers in his expert report
• “The essential benefit of such a joint collaboration ... is that a member of the common legal enterprise cannot reveal the contents of the shared communications without the consent of all the parties.”
• “In order ... for documents and communications shared amongst these litigants to be considered confidential, there must exist an agreement, though not necessarily in writing, embodying a cooperative and common enterprise towards an identical strategy.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).