Legal Opinion
Otto v. Box U.S.A. Group, Inc.
District Court, N.D. Georgia
Decided December 2, 1997No. Civ.A. No. 1:96-CV-2296-JECPublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S ORDER
HARPER, United States Magistrate Judge.
In this case the defendants have moved for an order compelling discovery of a secretly tape-recorded conversation between plaintiff and a third-party witness in this case. (Doc. No. 25). Plaintiff asserts that the tape is protected by the work-product doctrine announced in Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947) and later codified through Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(3). Based on the following analysis, the undersigned holds that, while the work-product doctrine may apply, by secretly recording the conversation…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Hickman v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Upjohn Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- David Richard Moon v. Lanson Newsome, WardenCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1989
- In Re Grand Jury Proceedings. Appeal of Fmc Corporation, Douglas E. Kliever and Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & HamiltonCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1979
- In Re Antitrust Grand JuryCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1986
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Anderson v. HaleDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 2001
- Tapley v. CollinsDistrict Court, S.D. Georgia · 1999
- Smith v. WNA Carthage, L.L.C.District Court, E.D. Texas · 2001
- Halbach v. BoymanNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2005
- Ocean Beauty Seafoods LLC v. Captain AlaskaDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 2022
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.