Smith, K. v. CCP of Phl. Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that “a court is not entitled to delegate its judicial power and related functions to the executive branch, especially when the executive branch is an interested party in the pending dispute”
• explaining that claims of AC privilege “can sometimes be defeated by the crime-fraud exception,” such as when the attorney-client communications are “for the purpose of committing or furthering a crime or fraud” (internal citations omitted)
• remanding for greater privilege protections where “the [privilege protocol] authorized paralegals and IRS and DEA agents to designate seized documents as nonprivileged”
• noting the decision whether to grant preliminary injunctive relief is within the discretion of the court
• rejecting filter team procedures where the filter team “includes prosecutors employed in the same judicial district where Law Firm clients ‘are being investigated by, or are being prosecuted by’ ” the same prosecutor’s office
• finding the defendant would be irreparably harmed absent injunctive relief preventing a Filter Team’s review of seized materials because of the role the attorney-client privilege plays in ensuring the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).