Legal Opinion
Stovall v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
Decided May 5, 2009No. 05-400CPublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
ALLEGRA, Judge.
On February 20, 2009, this court, following an en camera review, granted, in part, and denied, in part, plaintiffs motion to compel the production of documents responsive to one of his requests for production. The court held that a memorandum prepared by the Office of General Counsel (OGC) for the U.S. Department of Agriculture discussing the settlement agreement at issue herein (the Resolution Agreement) was protected by the attorney-client privilege. Stovall v. United States, 85 Fed.Cl. 810, 815 (2009). However, the court held that the privilege was impliedly waived when…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Caldwell, Iii v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2004
- Yuba Natural Resources, Inc. v. The United States, Defendant/cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1990
- Fru-Con Construction Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1999
- Den Norske Bank As v. First Nat'L of BostCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1996
- Bishop v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1992
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Shapiro v. Secretary of Health & Human ServicesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2012
- Petro-Hunt, L.L.C. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2012
- Jenkins v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2009
- Litigation Trust for the Trust Beneficiaries of SNTL Corp. v. JP Morgan Chase (In re Superior National Insurance Gr.)United States Bankruptcy Court, C.D. California · 2014