work product doctrine in Rhode Island

2017In ordering discovery of such materials when the required showing has been made, the court shall protect against disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of an attorney or other representative of a party concerning the litigation.” In determining whether a document is immune under the work product doctrine, courts focus on whether, “in light of the nature of the document or tangible material and the facts of the ease, the document can be said to have been prepared or obtained because of the prospect of litigation * * Cabral, 556 A.2d at 49 .

2009Under the work product doctrine, "[a] party shall not require a deponent to produce or submit for inspection any writing obtained or prepared by the adverse party, his attorney . . . in anticipation of litigation . . . unless . . . a denial of production or inspection will result in an injustice or undue hardship. . . ." Cabral v. Arruda , 556 A.2d 47 , 49 (R.I. 1989) (emphasis added).

2017As a result, the filing of a lawsuit is not a prerequisite for the successful invocation of the work product doctrine, which embraces material that is prepared “when litigation is merely a contingency.” Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co. v. McAlpine, 120 R.I. 744, 748 , 391 A.2d 84 , 87 (1978).

2017As a result, the filing of a lawsuit is not a prerequisite for the successful invocation of the work product doctrine, which embraces material that is prepared “when litigation is merely a contingency.” Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co. v. McAlpine, 120 R.I. 744, 748 , 391 A.2d 84 , 87 (1978).

1984And because it looks to the vitality of the adversary system rather than simply seeking to preserve confidentiality, the work product privilege is not automatically waived by any disclosure to a third party.” In Re Sealed Case, 676 F.2d at 809 .

1984And because it looks to the vitality of the adversary system rather than simply seeking to preserve confidentiality, the work product privilege is not automatically waived by any disclosure to a third party." In Re Sealed Case, 676 F.2d at 809 .

2008While the main purpose of the work product privilege is to prevent an attorney from "freeloading" on an adversary's work, Carbral , 556 A.2d at 48 (citing Hickman , 329 U.S. at 516 ), the party who asserts a privilege has the burden of establishing entitlement to it.

1994Rule 26(b) (2) represents a modified version of the work-product doctrine enunciated in Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947).

2007In support of its reasoning, the court referred to the ruling set forth by the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Nobles , 422 U.S. 225 : "At its core, the work-product doctrine shelters the mental processes of the attorney, providing a privileged area within which he can analyze and prepare his client's case.

2006The Supreme Court extended the work-product privilege to apply to materials prepared by agents of a party’s attorney in United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 238-39 , 95 S.Ct. 2160 , 45 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975). 3 .

2013See State v. von Bulow, 475 A.2d 995, 1009 (R.I.1984).

2007Thus, although the work product doctrine does not provide an absolute privilege, von Bulow , 475 A.2d at 1009 , at its core, "it shelters the mental processes of the attorney, providing a privileged area within which he or she can analyze and prepare his or her client's case." See State v. DiPrete , 710 A.2d 1266 , 1286 n. 13 (R.I. 1998).

2009In ordering discovery of such materials when the required showing has been made, the court shall protect against disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of an attorney or other representative of a party concerning the litigation.” To determine whether an item is work product, one must look, as a preliminary matter, at “whether, in light of the nature of the document or tangible material and facts of the case, the document can be said to have been prepared or obtained because of the prospect of litigation, by or for an adverse party or its agent.” Cabral,

2008As the First Circuit has said in the case cited by Mrs. O'Brien, "At a minimum an agency seeking to withhold a document . . . must identify the litigation for which the document was created. . . . and explain why the work-product privilege applies to all portions of the document." Maine v. Dept. of Interior , 298 F.3d 60 (C.A. 1, 2002) citing Church of Scientology International v. U.S. Dept. of Justice , 30 F.3d 224 , 237 (C.A. 1, 1994). 2 Plaintiff's counsel relies on the deposition testimony of Mrs. O'Brien and an affidavit from a prior attorney.

2017Cf. Cashman Equipment Corp., Inc. v. Cardi Corp., Inc., 139 A.3d 379, 383 (R.I. 2016) (affirming the denial of a motion to compel production when the request sought production of drafts considered by the opposing expert).

2013In ordering discovery of such materials when the required showing has been made, the court shall protect against disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of an attorney or other representative of a party concerning the litigation.” “To determine whether an item is work product, one must look, as a preliminary matter, at ‘whether, in light of the *1193 nature of the document or tangible material and facts of the case, the document can be said to have been prepared or obtained because of the prospect of litigation, by or for an adverse party or its agent.’ ”

2013See Henderson, 966 A.2d at 1249 (“Because we conclude that the * * * report is shielded from discovery based on the work-product privilege, we need not reach the defendant’s alternative argument that the report is protected by the attorney-client privilege.”).

2009The distinction is chiefly that the house counsel gives advice to one regular client, the outside counsel to several clients." Id. at 360 ; see also Shelton v. American Motors Corp. , 805 F.2d 1323 , 1326 n. 3 (8 th Cir. 1986) ("The parties do not dispute that a corporation's `in-house counsel' is afforded the same protection as `outside counsel' with respect to the work-product doctrine and the attorney-client privilege."); O'Brien v. Board of Education , 86 F.R.D. 548 , 549 (S.D.N.Y. 1980) (fact that document was authored by in-house counsel rather than by independent counsel was "of no sign

2009See Martin v. Bally's Park Place Hotel Casino , 983 F.2d 1252 , 1260 (3d Cir. 1993) (finding that a person's "unilateral belief" that litigation will result is the initial focus of the inquiry into whether a report was prepared "in anticipation of litigation," but that the rule is limited by the requirement that anticipation of litigation be objectively reasonable).

2009In ordering discovery of such materials when the required showing has been made, the court shall protect against disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of an attorney or other representative of a party concerning the litigation.” To determine whether an item is work product, one must look, as a preliminary matter, at “whether, in light of the nature of the document or tangible material and facts of the case, the document can be said to have been prepared or obtained because of the prospect of litigation, by or for an adverse party or its agent.” Cabral,

2009Ashley, 118 R.I. at 509-11 , 374 A.2d at 1036 (yet, ordering production of expert reports after undue hardship outweighed immunity).

2009Ashley, 118 R.I. at 509-11 , 374 A.2d at 1036 (yet, ordering production of expert reports after undue hardship outweighed immunity).

1998United States v. Horn, 811 F.Supp. 739, 746 (D.N.H.1992).

1998United States v. Horn, 811 F.Supp. 739, 746 (D.N.H.1992).