Outing v. Smith

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a party failed in meeting its burden that documents were work product because the party resisting discovery failed to present affidavits or other evidentiary support for its contention that the documents were prepared in anticipation of litigation
• finding that plaintiff’s argument that the “very nature” of the documents precluded their discovery was insufficient
• citing, Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 512, 67 S.Ct. 385, 394, 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947)
• citing, among other authority, Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 512 (1947)
• \trend in lower federal courts is to analyze work product claims concerning insurance claims files on a case by case basis ...\
• “[T]he work product doctrine is a limitation on discovery in federal cases, and federal law provides the primary decisional framework.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).