Ruhlander v. District Court of Hampshire

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that DR 7-104 does not bar contacts with former corporate employees, at least in absence of a showing that the employee possessed privileged information
• observing that “[w]here there is a strong likelihood that a former employee does possess [privileged] information, an appropriately tailored order can be issued,” though showing of such likelihood had not been made
• providing “strong reasons why it would be unwise to expand the definition of a corporate party beyond its present contours”
• refusing to prohibit plaintiffs counsel from engaging in ex parte communications with the former Director of Strategic Planning and Business Development for defendant Uniroyal’s Engineered Products Group
• since defendant had not demonstrated that former employee was privy to specific privileged information, privilege did not attach
• DR 7-104(A)(1) does not require a ban on ex parte communications with a former employee

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).