State Ex Rel. United Hospital Center, Inc. v. Bedell

How courts have described this case

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

• taking of an opposing counsel’s deposition will necessarily devolve into controversies over the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine
• “ 'When a discovery order involves the probable invasion of confidential materials that are exempted from discovery under Rule 26(b)(1) [privileged matter] and (3
• burden of establishing attorney-client privilege or work product exception, in all their elements, always rests upon person asserting it
• “[T]he advice must be sought … from [the] attorney in his capacity as a legal advisor” and the advice must have involved legal advice.
• “To determine whether a document was prepared in anticipation of litigation and, is therefore, protected from disclosure under the work product doctrine, the primary motivating purpose behind the creation of the document must have been to assist in pending or probable future litigation.”
• “ ‘The burden of establishing the attorney-client privilege or the work product exception, in all their elements, always rests upon the person asserting it.’ Syl. pt. 4, State ex rel. U [nited ] S [tates ] F [idelity ] & G[uar. Co.] v. Canady, 194 W.Va. 431, 460 S.E.2d 677 (1995).”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).