Legal Opinion
Stenovich v. Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
New York Supreme Court
Decided January 2, 2003PublishedCited by 23 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Charles J. Tejada, J.
Introduction
Pursuant to New York Civil Practice Law and Rules §§ 3102 and 3124, petitioner seeks an order directing Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz (Wachtell Lipton), a New York law firm, to produce certain documents demanded by petitioner but withheld by respondent on the grounds of attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. Petitioner was represented by Benjamin Y. Kaufman, Art Leahy and Trisha McCormick of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach. Noah B. Novogrodsky of Howard, Rice, Nemerovski, Canaday Falk & Rabkin in San Francisco appeared…
2Cases cited33 opinions
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Fisher v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Babcock v. JacksonNew York Court of Appeals · 1963
- Allen v. Crowell-Collier Publishing Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1968
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Allied Irish Banks v. Bank of AmericaDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2007
- Egiazaryan v. ZalmayevDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2013
- Allied Irish Banks, P.L.C. v. Bank of America, N.A.District Court, S.D. New York · 2008
- Gulf Islands Leasing, Inc. v. Bombardier Capital, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2003
- American Re-Insurance Co. v. United States FidelityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.