United States ex rel. Tennessee Valley Authority v. Bennett

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the Advisory Committee Note should be read only to require disclosure of factual material contained in otherwise privileged documents and that clear and unambiguous language would be required to override the work product privilege
• stating that “[t]he risk of an attorney influencing the expert witness does not go unchecked in the adversarial system, for the reasonableness of an expert opinion can be judged against the knowledge of the expert’s field and is always subject to the scrutiny of other experts”
• requiring “clear and unambiguous” language in Rule 26 before violating work product
• “For the high privilege accorded attorney opinion work product not to apply would require clear and unambiguous language in a statute. No such language appears here.” (citation omitted)
• the drafters of the federal rule \intended the terms `subject to' to mean that subdivision (b)(3) applies unless there is a standard to the contrary in subdivision (b)(4)\ and \there appears to be no differing standard for discovery of opinion work product\
• the drafters of the federal rule \intended the terms 'subject to’ to mean that subdivision (b)(3) applies unless there is a standard to the contrary in subdivision (b)(4)” and \there appears to be no differing standard for discovery of opinion work product”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).