The Duplan Corporation v. Moulinage Et Retorderie De Chavanoz, Deering Milliken, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that work product documents do not lose their qualified immunity from discovery in subsequent and unrelated litigation
• work product documents prepared for a prior suit do not lose their qualified immunity from discovery under Rule 26(b)(3) upon termination of that litigation
• that the immunity extended to work product may extend in time beyond the litigation at hand
• rationale for work-product rule scarcely less applicable to a closed case than to one still being contested
• documents prepared for one case have the same protection in a second case where the two cases are closely related in parties or subject matter
• upon the termination of litigation the work-product documents of an attorney prepared incident thereto do not lose the qualified immunity extended to them under Rule 26(b)(3)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).