Tacoma Ry. & Power Co. v. Hays

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that communications related solely to an expert’s “role as a consultant,” even though he served as a testifying expert for other parts of the case, were protected by Rule 26(b)(4)(D)
• “In light of Rule 26(a)(2)(B)'s broad disclosure requirements, courts have concluded any ambiguity as to the role played by the expert when reviewing or generating documents should be resolved in favor of the party seeking discovery.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).