Legal Opinion
Denney v. Jenkens & Gilchrist
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided November 23, 2004No. 03 Civ. 5460 SASPublishedCited by 31 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
SCHEINDLIN, District Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
A. The Evidentiary Determination
At issue here is a memorandum (the “Kerekes Memorandum”) dated August 11, 2000, written by Michael Kerekes, a partner at BDO Seidman, L.L.P. (“BDO”). 1 Plaintiffs, who obtained the memo from defendant Jenkens & Gilchrist (“Jenkens”), seek to make use of the Ker-ekes Memorandum in this action and in related actions across the country. BDO contends that the memo is privileged. Plaintiffs have moved for a determination of the privilege issue. For the following reasons, I find that any privilege that may…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Upjohn Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. WeintraubSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Swidler & Berlin v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- In Re Grand Jury Subpoena Served Upon Simon HorowitzCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1973
- Motorola Credit Corp. v. UzanCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2004
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by31 opinions
- Denney v. BDO Seidman, L.L.P.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2005
- In Re Asia Global Crossing, Ltd.United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · 2005
- Wultz v. Bank of China Ltd.District Court, S.D. New York · 2015
- HSH Nordbank AG New York Branch v. SwerdlowDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2009
- In re General Motors LLC Ignition Switch LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2015
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.