Ward v. Peabody

How courts have described this case

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

• implying that work product doctrine ceases to apply to documents after the litigation for which the documents were created has concluded
• preparation for litigation “includes litigation which, although not already on foot, is to be reasonably anticipated in the near future”
• “The field of operation of the work product rule is ... preparation for litigation . . .”
• discovery is appropriate where neither the documents at issue nor their substantial equivalents are available from another source
• production of work product documents required where claim of unclean hands in patent procurement called into question relationship between plaintiff and its patent consultant, a former patent office employee
• work product doctrine is “intended to enhance the vitality of an adversary system of litigation by insulating counsel’s work from intrusions, inferences, or borrowings by other parties as [counsel] prepares for the contest”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).