SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that documents cannot be protected from discovery solely by virtue of being routed through an attorney
• recognizing attorney-client privilege may be waived in the corporate context “if the communications are disclosed to employees who did not need access to them”
• finding that plaintiff failed to meet its burden of establishing that documents were protected by the attorney-client privilege where plaintiff failed to identify any specific attorney with whom the confidential communication was made
• stating lack of dates on documents alone, given other information provided, does not vitiate attorney-client privilege claim
• extending the attorney-client privilege to consultants retained to assist with the provision of legal advice
• finding privilege log descriptions sufficient where they were supported by counsel’s affidavit stating that the communications were made for the purpose of securing or providing legal services and/or legal advice

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

17 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. BDO USA, L.L.P.
  Fifth Circuit· 2017-11-16· cited 186×
• Evergreen Trading, LLC ex rel. GN Investments, LLC v. United States
  Federal Claims· 2007-12-21· cited 37×
• Towne Place Condo. Ass'n v. Phila. Indem. Ins. Co.
  E.D. Illinois· 2018-01-11· cited 36×
• Deseret Management Corp. v. United States
  Federal Claims· 2007-03-29· cited 28×
• Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. United States
  Federal Claims· 2006-01-25· cited 24×
• Jicarilla Apache Nation v. United States
  Federal Claims· 2009-07-21· cited 24×
• Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. CaremarkPCS Health, L.P.
  E.D. Pennsylvania· 2008-12-09· cited 17×
• Williams v. Sprint/United Management Co.
  D. Kansas· 2006-11-09· cited 11×
• Idenix Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Gilead Sciences, Inc.
  D. Delaware· 2016-07-20· cited 10×
• United States ex rel. Bibby v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
  N.D. Georgia· 2015-11-16· cited 9×
• SodexoMAGIC, LLC v. Drexel Univ.
  E.D. Pennsylvania· 2018-02-23· cited 4×
• WebXchange Inc. v. Dell Inc.
  D. Delaware· 2010-02-16· cited 4×
• Cottillion v. United Refining Co.
  W.D. Pennsylvania· 2011-12-21· cited 4×
• Berks Behavioral Health LLC v. St. Joseph Regional Health Network (In re Berks Behavioral Health LLC)
  E.D. Pennsylvania· 2013-10-21· cited 3×
• Audi of America, Inc. v. Bronsberg & Hughes Pontiac, Inc.
  M.D. Pennsylvania· 2017-06-08· cited 2×
• EEOC v. BDO USA, L.L.P.
  Fifth Circuit· 2017-05-08
• 3rd Eye Surveillance, LLC v. United States
  Federal Claims· 2021-08-27

Cites

45 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

• Hickman v. Taylor
  Supreme Court· 1947-01-13· cited 4,981×
• Upjohn Co. v. United States
  Supreme Court· 1981-01-13· cited 3,227×
• United States v. Nobles
  Supreme Court· 1975-06-23· cited 1,718×
• United States v. United Shoe MacHinery Corporation
  D. Massachusetts· 1950-03-10· cited 503×
• Diversified Industries, Inc. v. The Honorable James H. Meredith, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
  Eighth Circuit· 1978-02-05· cited 384×
• Sperry v. Florida Ex Rel. Florida Bar
  Supreme Court· 1963-05-27· cited 362×
• In Re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated September 15, 1983 Marc Rich & Co. A.G., Intervenor-Appellant v. United States
  Second Circuit· 1984-03-27· cited 302×
• In Re Ford Motor Company
  Third Circuit· 1997-05-02· cited 283×
• Panduit Corp. v. All States Plastic Manufacturing Co., Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 1984-09-25· cited 279×
• In Re Grand Jury Proceedings. Appeal of Fmc Corporation, Douglas E. Kliever and Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton
  Third Circuit· 1979-07-18· cited 271×
• In Re Grand Jury Investigation. Appeal of United States of America
  Third Circuit· 1979-06-01· cited 261×
• United States v. Construction Products Research, Inc. Five Star Products, Inc. And H. Nash Babcock
  Second Circuit· 1996-01-02· cited 255×
• Bowne of New York City, Inc. v. AmBase Corp.
  S.D. New York· 1993-06-03· cited 214×
• Wilderness Society v. United States Department of the Interior
  District of Columbia· 2004-10-08· cited 164×
• In Re Spalding Sports Worldwide, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2000-02-15· cited 150×
• American Standard Inc. v. Pfizer Inc. And Howmedica, Inc., and Biomet, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 1987-08-31· cited 131×
• GFI, Inc. v. Franklin Corp.
  Federal Circuit· 2001-09-07· cited 101×
• In Re Grand Jury Investigation. Appeal of United States of America
  Third Circuit· 1990-10-29· cited 99×
• In the Matter of Grand Jury Empanelled February 14, 1978. Appeal of Nathan Markowitz
  Third Circuit· 1979-07-23· cited 98×
• Harper v. Auto-Owners Insurance
  S.D. Indiana· 1991-08-13· cited 98×