Swift v. Williams

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “research conducted for use in drafting” may not be protected under the DPP, which, unlike the legislative privilege, does not extend to purely factual material
• “[F]act-finding, information-gathering, and other types of research concerning the subjects of potential legislation are entitled to protection under the legislative privilege.”
• following Bethune-Hill in permitting discovery into legislative intent where such intent is central to the federal claim at issue
• declining to order production of documents for in camera review “because [plaintiffs have failed to establish how they are relevant and proportional to the needs of this case”
• “The legislative privilege also protects Congressional fact- and information-gathering activities about the subject of potential legislation[.]”
• “The party seeking discovery bears the initial burden of proving the discovery is relevant. . . .”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).