Legal Opinion
Helt v. Metropolitan District Commission
District Court, D. Connecticut
Decided May 15, 1986No. Civ. No. H-82-971 (TEC)PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
CLARIE, Senior District Judge.
In this sex discrimination action, the plaintiff has moved for an order of the Court compelling the defendant to provide him with certain documents relating to its pension plan. The defendant has objected on grounds that the documents requested are protected by the attorney-client privilege. Because the Court finds that neither the privilege nor the work product doctrine applies to these documents, and also that several of them are irrelevant, the plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery is granted in part and denied…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Hickman v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Garner v. WolfinbargerCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1970
- United States v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.District Court, District of Columbia · 1979
- Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild, Local 35 v. Washington Star Co.District Court, District of Columbia · 1982
- Valente v. Pepsico, Inc.District Court, D. Delaware · 1975
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Kenneth E. Wildbur, Sr. v. Arco Chemical Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1992
- Martin v. Valley National BankDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1991
- Sandberg v. Virginia Bankshares, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1992
- Mason Tenders District Council Pension Fund v. MesseraDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1997
- Jicarilla Apache Nation v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2009
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.