White v. Quisenberry

How courts have described this case

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

• observing that attorney billing records, while unprotected by the work product doctrine, “are protected by the attorney- client privilege . . . to the extent that they reveal litigation strategy and/or the nature of services performed”
• observing that attorney billing records, while unprotected by the work product doctrine, “are protected by the attorney- client privilege . . . to the extent that they reveal litigation strategy and/or the nature of services performed”
• the attorney’s name, the client’s name, the general matter being worked on, and the date and time of services rendered are unprotected, but a description of the actual legal services performed is.
• “We find it unlikely that the billing records would be protected by the attorney work product doctrine. ... Billing records are commonly created in the regular course of business, which removes them from this doctrine’s coverage.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).