States v. George H. Meyer Sons

How courts have described this case

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

• finding no waiver of privilege because it was unclear the degree to which the accountants relied on legal advice
• citing, inter alia, United States v. Doe, 219 F.3d 175, 182 (2d Cir.2000)
• declining to engage in an in-camera review where movants did not make a “sufficiently compelling evidentiary case to trigger such review” and the documents would not answer open questions before the court
• movant’s “burden is not satisfied by a showing that the material in question ‘might provide evidence of a crime or fraud”
• “The pertinent intent is that of the client, not the attorney.”
• “[T]he transactions that are at the heart of the complaint and that formed the trigger for the targeted attorney-client communications were undertaken in the absence of a fiduciary relationship to a substantial portion of the class members.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).