Potts v. Court of Criminal Appeals

How courts have described this case

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

• allowing in-house counsel access to confidential information because “[gjiven the technical nature of this case, the advice of in-house counsel with specialized knowledge of the steel industry could be essential to the proper handling of this litigation by outside counsel”
• in-house counsel’s access to confidential information “should turn on the in-house counsel’s involvement in ‘competitive decisionmaking’ ”
• some, even highly relevant, information might be kept from direct competitors
• one in-house attorney could examine documents covered by protective order when he averred that he “had absolutely no involvement” in competitive decisionmaking, but another could not when he only averred having “no direct responsibility or authority” in competitive decisionmaking
• applying rationale to in house counsel

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).