Sandra T.E. v. South Berwyn School District 100

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that work product protection applies when documents “have been prepared…because of the prospect of litigation.”
• finding attorneys’ investigative work privileged where they provided Upjohn warnings, labeled documents confidential, and submitted affidavits affirming they had been hired to provide legal advice
• finding relevant that a document was marked “Privileged and Confidential,” “Attorney-Client Communication,” and “Attorney Work Product”
• finding attorneys’ investigation of allegation of sexual abuse of students protected by the attorney-client privilege
• asking “whether the communication was related to [the purpose of seeking legal advice] and made in confidence by the client” (quotation marks and alterations omitted)
• noting that no third parties were present

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).