work product doctrine in District of Columbia

13 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 1977–2023 2 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by District of Columbia courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (20)

Case	Followed	Cited
United States v. Noblesgreen scotus · 1975 · cited in 7 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 1979–2023 2 sentences 2005"The work-product doctrine ... creates a ‘qualified privilege’ for materials prepared by an attorney (or attorney’s agent) in anticipation of trial.” Parks v. United States, 451 A.2d 591, 607 (D.C.1982), ce rt. denied, 461 U.S. 945 , 103 S.Ct. 2123 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1303 (1983) (quoting United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 237-39 , 95 S.Ct. 2160 , 45 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975)) (other citation omitted); In re Public Defender Service, 831 A.2d 890, 911 (D.C.2003) (the work product doctrine protects from disclosure the mental processes of an attorney as reflected in documents prepared by the attorney or hi 2005"The work-product doctrine ... creates a ‘qualified privilege’ for materials prepared by an attorney (or attorney’s agent) in anticipation of trial.” Parks v. United States, 451 A.2d 591, 607 (D.C.1982), ce rt. denied, 461 U.S. 945 , 103 S.Ct. 2123 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1303 (1983) (quoting United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 237-39 , 95 S.Ct. 2160 , 45 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975)) (other citation omitted); In re Public Defender Service, 831 A.2d 890, 911 (D.C.2003) (the work product doctrine protects from disclosure the mental processes of an attorney as reflected in documents prepared by the attorney or hi	4	7
Hickman v. Taylorgreen scotus · 1947 · cited in 5 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 1982–2015 2 sentences 2003The statements are not protected attorney work product because they were not prepared by Attorney or his agents. “[T]he work product doctrine protects any document prepared in anticipation of litigation by or for the attorney.” In re Antitrust Grand Jury, 805 F.2d at 163 (emphasis added); see Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 509-14 , 67 S.Ct. 385 , 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947). “[T]he principle underlying the work product doctrine — sheltering the mental processes of an attorney as reflected in documents prepared for litigation — is not generally promoted by shielding from discovery materials in an att 2003The statements are not protected attorney work product because they were not prepared by Attorney or his agents. “[T]he work product doctrine protects any document prepared in anticipation of litigation by or for the attorney.” In re Antitrust Grand Jury, 805 F.2d at 163 (emphasis added); see Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 509-14 , 67 S.Ct. 385 , 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947). “[T]he principle underlying the work product doctrine — sheltering the mental processes of an attorney as reflected in documents prepared for litigation — is not generally promoted by shielding from discovery materials in an att	2	5
Parks v. United Statesgreen dc · 1982 · cited in 3 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 1992–2008 2 sentences 2008R. 26(b)(3) (providing that, in ordering discovery of documents prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial, "the Court shall protect against disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of am attorney or other representative of a party concerning the litigation”), a rule that "is identical to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(3),” Parks v. United States, 451 A.2d 591, 608 (D.C.1982), which “codifies the work product doctrine.” Nutramax, 183 F.R.D. at 461 . 2005"The work-product doctrine ... creates a ‘qualified privilege’ for materials prepared by an attorney (or attorney’s agent) in anticipation of trial.” Parks v. United States, 451 A.2d 591, 607 (D.C.1982), ce rt. denied, 461 U.S. 945 , 103 S.Ct. 2123 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1303 (1983) (quoting United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 237-39 , 95 S.Ct. 2160 , 45 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975)) (other citation omitted); In re Public Defender Service, 831 A.2d 890, 911 (D.C.2003) (the work product doctrine protects from disclosure the mental processes of an attorney as reflected in documents prepared by the attorney or hi	2	3
In re: Search Warrantgreen ca4 · 2019 · cited in 2 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023 2 sentences 2023See In re Search Warrant Issued June 13, 2019, 942 F.3d 159 , 174 (4th Cir. 2019) (“[T]he work-product doctrine fulfills an essential and important role in ensuring the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel.”); United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 238 (1975) (work product doctrine is “vital” and “assur[es] the proper functioning of the criminal justice system”). 2023See In re Search Warrant Issued June 13, 2019, 942 F.3d 159, 174 (4th Cir. 2019) (“[T]he work-product doctrine fulfills an essential and important role in ensuring the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel.”); United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 238 (1975) (work product doctrine is “vital” and “assur[es] the proper functioning of the criminal justice system”).	2	2
Upjohn Co. v. United Statesgreen scotus · 1981 · cited in 3 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 1982–2023 2 sentences 2023The court also noted that even though its “decision [was] couched in terms of the attorney-client privilege, it applies equally to the work product privilege, a complementary rule that protects many of the same interests.” Id. at 722 n.6 (citing Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (1981)). 2023The court also noted that even though its “decision [was] couched in terms of the attorney-client privilege, it applies equally to the work product privilege, a complementary rule that protects many of the same interests.” Id. at 722 n.6 (citing Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (1981)).	1	3
Anne Anderson v. Cryovac, Inc., Anne Anderson v. Beatrice Foods Co.green ca1 · 1988 · cited in 1 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010 2 sentences 2010We decline to do so, concluding that even if the sentences were not covered by the work product privilege, they are cumulative of other evidence and thus are not material, and that any error in the court's ruling therefore is harmless. [16] Cf. Anderson v. Cryovac, Inc., 862 F.2d 910, 929 (1st Cir.1988) ("Once a proper discovery request has been seasonably propounded, we will not allow a party sentiently to avoid its obligations by ... failing to examine records within its control."). [17] DCHA argues that appellants could have asked Firth about damage to electrical switches or outlets. 2010Cf. Anderson v. Cryovac, Inc., 862 F.2d 910, 929 (1st Cir.1988) ("Once a proper discovery request has been seasonably propounded, we will not allow a party sentiently to avoid its obligations by ... failing to examine records within its control.”). .	1	1
In Re Artisgreen dc · 2005 · cited in 1 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009 2 sentences 2009See generally In re Artis, 883 A.2d 85 , 100 n. 17 (D.C.2005) ("The work product doctrine ... creates a 'qualified privilege’ for materials prepared by an attorney (or attorney's agent) in anticipation of trial.”) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). 2009See generally In re Artis, 883 A.2d 85 , 100 n. 17 (D.C.2005) ("The work product doctrine ... creates a 'qualified privilege’ for materials prepared by an attorney (or attorney's agent) in anticipation of trial.”) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).	1	1
In Re Public Defender Servicegreen dc · 2003 · cited in 1 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005 2 sentences 2005"The work-product doctrine ... creates a ‘qualified privilege’ for materials prepared by an attorney (or attorney’s agent) in anticipation of trial.” Parks v. United States, 451 A.2d 591, 607 (D.C.1982), ce rt. denied, 461 U.S. 945 , 103 S.Ct. 2123 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1303 (1983) (quoting United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 237-39 , 95 S.Ct. 2160 , 45 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975)) (other citation omitted); In re Public Defender Service, 831 A.2d 890, 911 (D.C.2003) (the work product doctrine protects from disclosure the mental processes of an attorney as reflected in documents prepared by the attorney or hi 2005R. 16(b)(2). [17] "The work-product doctrine ... creates a `qualified privilege' for materials prepared by an attorney (or attorney's agent) in anticipation of trial." Parks v. United States, 451 A.2d 591, 607 (D.C.1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 945 , 103 S.Ct. 2123 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1303 (1983) (quoting United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 237-39 , 95 S.Ct. 2160 , 45 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975)) (other citation omitted); In re Public Defender Service, 831 A.2d 890, 911 (D.C.2003) (the work product doctrine protects from disclosure the mental processes of an attorney as reflected in documents prepared by t	1	1
In Re Antitrust Grand Jurygreen ca6 · 1986 · cited in 1 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003 1 sentence 2003The statements are not protected attorney work product because they were not prepared by Attorney or his agents. “[T]he work product doctrine protects any document prepared in anticipation of litigation by or for the attorney.” In re Antitrust Grand Jury, 805 F.2d at 163 (emphasis added); see Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 509-14 , 67 S.Ct. 385 , 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947). “[T]he principle underlying the work product doctrine — sheltering the mental processes of an attorney as reflected in documents prepared for litigation — is not generally promoted by shielding from discovery materials in an att	1	1
Docket No. 02-6239green ca2 · 2003 · cited in 1 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003 1 sentence 2003The statements are not protected attorney work product because they were not prepared by Attorney or his agents. “[T]he work product doctrine protects any document prepared in anticipation of litigation by or for the attorney.” In re Antitrust Grand Jury, 805 F.2d at 163 (emphasis added); see Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 509-14 , 67 S.Ct. 385 , 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947). “[T]he principle underlying the work product doctrine — sheltering the mental processes of an attorney as reflected in documents prepared for litigation — is not generally promoted by shielding from discovery materials in an att	1	1
Fisher v. United Statesgreen scotus · 1976 · cited in 1 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003 2 sentences 2003The statements are not protected attorney work product because they were not prepared by Attorney or his agents. “[T]he work product doctrine protects any document prepared in anticipation of litigation by or for the attorney.” In re Antitrust Grand Jury, 805 F.2d at 163 (emphasis added); see Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 509-14 , 67 S.Ct. 385 , 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947). “[T]he principle underlying the work product doctrine — sheltering the mental processes of an attorney as reflected in documents prepared for litigation — is not generally promoted by shielding from discovery materials in an att 2003The statements are not protected attorney work product because they were not prepared by Attorney or his agents. “[T]he work product doctrine protects any document prepared in anticipation of litigation by or for the attorney.” In re Antitrust Grand Jury, 805 F.2d at 163 (emphasis added); see Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 509-14 , 67 S.Ct. 385 , 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947). “[T]he principle underlying the work product doctrine — sheltering the mental processes of an attorney as reflected in documents prepared for litigation — is not generally promoted by shielding from discovery materials in an att	1	1
United States v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.green cadc · 1980 · cited in 1 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 1982–1982 2 sentences 1982Although it has often been said that the work-product privilege exists to shield a party’s preparation materials from his opponent, see, e.g., Moody v. IRS, 210 U.S.App.D.C. 80 , 654 F.2d 795, 800 (1981); United States v. AT & T, 206 U.S.App.D.C. 317, 331 , 642 F.2d 1285, 1298-99 (1980), the relationship between code-fendants may be sufficiently “adversary” that they will be deterred from trial preparation if they cannot shield work product from each other. 1982Although it has often been said that the work-product privilege exists to shield a party’s preparation materials from his opponent, see, e.g., Moody v. IRS, 210 U.S.App.D.C. 80 , 654 F.2d 795, 800 (1981); United States v. AT & T, 206 U.S.App.D.C. 317, 331 , 642 F.2d 1285, 1298-99 (1980), the relationship between code-fendants may be sufficiently “adversary” that they will be deterred from trial preparation if they cannot shield work product from each other.	1	1
Coastal States Gas Corporation v. Department of Energygreen cadc · 1980 · cited in 1 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 1982–1982 2 sentences 1982See Coastal States Gas Corp. v. Dep’t of Energy, 199 U.S.App.D.C. 272, 282 , 617 F.2d 854, 864 (1980) (without work-product protection, “[c]ertainly less work-product would be committed to paper, which might harm the quality of trial preparation”). 30 .Super.Ct.Civ.R. 26(b)(3) provides in relevant part: [A] party may obtain discovery of documents and tangible things otherwise discoverable ... and prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or by or for that other party’s representative ... only upon a showing that the party seeking discovery has substantial need 1982See Coastal States Gas Corp. v. Dep’t of Energy, 199 U.S.App.D.C. 272, 282 , 617 F.2d 854, 864 (1980) (without work-product protection, “[c]ertainly less work-product would be committed to paper, which might harm the quality of trial preparation”). 30 .Super.Ct.Civ.R. 26(b)(3) provides in relevant part: [A] party may obtain discovery of documents and tangible things otherwise discoverable ... and prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or by or for that other party’s representative ... only upon a showing that the party seeking discovery has substantial need	1	1
Shearn Moody, Jr. v. Internal Revenue Servicegreen cadc · 1981 · cited in 1 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 1982–1982 2 sentences 1982Although it has often been said that the work-product privilege exists to shield a party’s preparation materials from his opponent, see, e.g., Moody v. IRS, 210 U.S.App.D.C. 80 , 654 F.2d 795, 800 (1981); United States v. AT & T, 206 U.S.App.D.C. 317, 331 , 642 F.2d 1285, 1298-99 (1980), the relationship between code-fendants may be sufficiently “adversary” that they will be deterred from trial preparation if they cannot shield work product from each other. 1982Although it has often been said that the work-product privilege exists to shield a party’s preparation materials from his opponent, see, e.g., Moody v. IRS, 210 U.S.App.D.C. 80 , 654 F.2d 795, 800 (1981); United States v. AT & T, 206 U.S.App.D.C. 317, 331 , 642 F.2d 1285, 1298-99 (1980), the relationship between code-fendants may be sufficiently “adversary” that they will be deterred from trial preparation if they cannot shield work product from each other.	1	1
In Re Sealed Casegreen cadc · 1982 · cited in 1 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 1982–1982 2 sentences 1982Although the work-product privilege originated in the context of pretrial civil discovery, Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 , 67 S.Ct. 385 , 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947), it applies to criminal proceedings, United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 238 , 95 S.Ct. 2160, 2170 , 45 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975); In re Sealed Case, 219 U.S.App.D.C. 195 , 676 F.2d 793, 810 (1982), and may be invoked during trial as well as pretrial. 28 Moreover, a defendant may invoke the privilege against a criminal codefendant, as well as against the government. 1982Although the work-product privilege originated in the context of pretrial civil discovery, Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 , 67 S.Ct. 385 , 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947), it applies to criminal proceedings, United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 238 , 95 S.Ct. 2160, 2170 , 45 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975); In re Sealed Case, 219 U.S.App.D.C. 195 , 676 F.2d 793, 810 (1982), and may be invoked during trial as well as pretrial. 28 Moreover, a defendant may invoke the privilege against a criminal codefendant, as well as against the government.	1	1
Irving M. Saunders v. United Statesgreen cadc · 1963 · cited in 1 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 1979–1979 2 sentences 1979“If a government attorney has recorded only his own thoughts in his interview notes, the notes would seem both to come within the work product immunity and to fall without the statutory definition of a ‘statement.’ ” [Quoting Saunders v. United States, 114 U.S.App.D.C. 345, 349 , 316 F.2d 346, 350 (1963). 1979“If a government attorney has recorded only his own thoughts in his interview notes, the notes would seem both to come within the work product immunity and to fall without the statutory definition of a ‘statement.’ ” [Quoting Saunders v. United States, 114 U.S.App.D.C. 345, 349 , 316 F.2d 346, 350 (1963).	1	1
United States v. Eugene L. Smaldonegreen ca10 · 1973 · cited in 1 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 1979–1979 1 sentence 1979See United States v. Smaldone, 484 F.2d 311, 315-18 (10th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 915 , 94 S.Ct. 1411 , 39 L.Ed.2d 469 (1974).] Nor do we agree with appellant’s suggestion that the disputed rulings conflicted with the principles of the attorney-client privilege.	1	1
Winters v. Bohanongreen scotus · 1974 · cited in 1 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 1979–1979 1 sentence 1979See United States v. Smaldone, 484 F.2d 311, 315-18 (10th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 915 , 94 S.Ct. 1411 , 39 L.Ed.2d 469 (1974).] Nor do we agree with appellant’s suggestion that the disputed rulings conflicted with the principles of the attorney-client privilege.	1	1
Brigadoon Scotch Distributors, Ltd. v. Securities & Exchange Commissiongreen scotus · 1974 · cited in 1 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 1979–1979 1 sentence 1979See United States v. Smaldone, 484 F.2d 311, 315-18 (10th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 915 , 94 S.Ct. 1411 , 39 L.Ed.2d 469 (1974).] Nor do we agree with appellant’s suggestion that the disputed rulings conflicted with the principles of the attorney-client privilege.	1	1
Interamerican Air Freight Corp. v. Civil Aeronautics Boardgreen scotus · 1974 · cited in 1 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 1979–1979 1 sentence 1979See United States v. Smaldone, 484 F.2d 311, 315-18 (10th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 915 , 94 S.Ct. 1411 , 39 L.Ed.2d 469 (1974).] Nor do we agree with appellant’s suggestion that the disputed rulings conflicted with the principles of the attorney-client privilege.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in District of Columbia. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (8)

Case	Cited	Years
Goldberg v. United States green scotus · 1976 2 sentences 1979We do not read Goldberg v. United States, 425 U.S. 94 , 96 S.Ct. 1338 (1976) (holding that the work product doctrine does not bar discovery of materials otherwise producible under the Jencks Act), as suggesting a contrary conclusion. 1979We do not read Goldberg v. United States, 425 U.S. 94 , 96 S.Ct. 1338 (1976) (holding that the work product doctrine does not bar discovery of materials otherwise producible under the Jencks Act), as suggesting a contrary conclusion.	2	1977–1979
Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. v. Twin Laboratories Inc. green mdd · 1998 2 sentences 2008R. 26(b)(3) (providing that, in ordering discovery of documents prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial, "the Court shall protect against disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of am attorney or other representative of a party concerning the litigation”), a rule that "is identical to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(3),” Parks v. United States, 451 A.2d 591, 608 (D.C.1982), which “codifies the work product doctrine.” Nutramax, 183 F.R.D. at 461 . 2008"Although the attorney client privilege and the work product rule have similarities, they are distinct doctrines, which protect different interests.” Id. at 464 n. 10 (citing authority that "[t]he attorney client privilege is intended to promote communications between lawyer and client by protecting client confidences.	1	2008–2008
Williams v. Pasma green scotus · 1983 2 sentences 2005"The work-product doctrine ... creates a ‘qualified privilege’ for materials prepared by an attorney (or attorney’s agent) in anticipation of trial.” Parks v. United States, 451 A.2d 591, 607 (D.C.1982), ce rt. denied, 461 U.S. 945 , 103 S.Ct. 2123 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1303 (1983) (quoting United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 237-39 , 95 S.Ct. 2160 , 45 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975)) (other citation omitted); In re Public Defender Service, 831 A.2d 890, 911 (D.C.2003) (the work product doctrine protects from disclosure the mental processes of an attorney as reflected in documents prepared by the attorney or hi 2005R. 16(b)(2). [17] "The work-product doctrine ... creates a `qualified privilege' for materials prepared by an attorney (or attorney's agent) in anticipation of trial." Parks v. United States, 451 A.2d 591, 607 (D.C.1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 945 , 103 S.Ct. 2123 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1303 (1983) (quoting United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 237-39 , 95 S.Ct. 2160 , 45 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975)) (other citation omitted); In re Public Defender Service, 831 A.2d 890, 911 (D.C.2003) (the work product doctrine protects from disclosure the mental processes of an attorney as reflected in documents prepared by t	1	2005–2005
Robinson v. Cumberland Capital Corp. green scotus · 1983 2 sentences 2005"The work-product doctrine ... creates a ‘qualified privilege’ for materials prepared by an attorney (or attorney’s agent) in anticipation of trial.” Parks v. United States, 451 A.2d 591, 607 (D.C.1982), ce rt. denied, 461 U.S. 945 , 103 S.Ct. 2123 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1303 (1983) (quoting United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 237-39 , 95 S.Ct. 2160 , 45 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975)) (other citation omitted); In re Public Defender Service, 831 A.2d 890, 911 (D.C.2003) (the work product doctrine protects from disclosure the mental processes of an attorney as reflected in documents prepared by the attorney or hi 2005R. 16(b)(2). [17] "The work-product doctrine ... creates a `qualified privilege' for materials prepared by an attorney (or attorney's agent) in anticipation of trial." Parks v. United States, 451 A.2d 591, 607 (D.C.1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 945 , 103 S.Ct. 2123 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1303 (1983) (quoting United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 237-39 , 95 S.Ct. 2160 , 45 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975)) (other citation omitted); In re Public Defender Service, 831 A.2d 890, 911 (D.C.2003) (the work product doctrine protects from disclosure the mental processes of an attorney as reflected in documents prepared by t	1	2005–2005
Parks v. United States green scotus · 1983 2 sentences 2005"The work-product doctrine ... creates a ‘qualified privilege’ for materials prepared by an attorney (or attorney’s agent) in anticipation of trial.” Parks v. United States, 451 A.2d 591, 607 (D.C.1982), ce rt. denied, 461 U.S. 945 , 103 S.Ct. 2123 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1303 (1983) (quoting United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 237-39 , 95 S.Ct. 2160 , 45 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975)) (other citation omitted); In re Public Defender Service, 831 A.2d 890, 911 (D.C.2003) (the work product doctrine protects from disclosure the mental processes of an attorney as reflected in documents prepared by the attorney or hi 2005R. 16(b)(2). [17] "The work-product doctrine ... creates a `qualified privilege' for materials prepared by an attorney (or attorney's agent) in anticipation of trial." Parks v. United States, 451 A.2d 591, 607 (D.C.1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 945 , 103 S.Ct. 2123 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1303 (1983) (quoting United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 237-39 , 95 S.Ct. 2160 , 45 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975)) (other citation omitted); In re Public Defender Service, 831 A.2d 890, 911 (D.C.2003) (the work product doctrine protects from disclosure the mental processes of an attorney as reflected in documents prepared by t	1	2005–2005
United States v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co. green dcd · 1979 2 sentences 1982Nobles, supra, 422 U.S. at 237-39 , 95 S.Ct. at 2169-2170 ; Super.Ct.Civ.R. 26(b)(3). 30 608 “Initially, there must be a demonstration by the resisting party that the disputed material has in fact been prepared ‘in anticipation of litigation or for trial,’ ” SEC v. National Student Marketing Corp., 18 Fed.R.Serv.2d 1302 , 1305 (D.D.C.1974) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(6)(3)); that is, the party must show that the material is “work product.” See United States v. AT & T, 86 F.R.D. 603 , Guideline No. 14 at 626 (D.D.C. 1979). “[T]he burden is then on the party opposing the privilege to establish rea 1982Nobles, supra, 422 U.S. at 237-39 , 95 S.Ct. at 2169-2170 ; Super.Ct.Civ.R. 26(b)(3). 30 608 “Initially, there must be a demonstration by the resisting party that the disputed material has in fact been prepared ‘in anticipation of litigation or for trial,’ ” SEC v. National Student Marketing Corp., 18 Fed.R.Serv.2d 1302 , 1305 (D.D.C.1974) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(6)(3)); that is, the party must show that the material is “work product.” See United States v. AT & T, 86 F.R.D. 603 , Guideline No. 14 at 626 (D.D.C. 1979). “[T]he burden is then on the party opposing the privilege to establish rea	1	1982–1982
Kotteakos v. United States green scotus · 1946 2 sentences 1982Accordingly, we can say with fair assurance that “the judgment was not substantially swayed,” Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 765 , 66 S.Ct. 1239, 1248 , 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946), 37 by the erroneous exclusion of this impeachment evidence. 38 Thus, the court’s error in excluding Wood’s notes under the work-product doctrine without in camera inspection, as well as the error in excluding Wood’s testimony, does not permit reversal. 39 VIII. 1982Accordingly, we can say with fair assurance that “the judgment was not substantially swayed,” Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 765 , 66 S.Ct. 1239, 1248 , 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946), 37 by the erroneous exclusion of this impeachment evidence. 38 Thus, the court’s error in excluding Wood’s notes under the work-product doctrine without in camera inspection, as well as the error in excluding Wood’s testimony, does not permit reversal. 39 VIII.	1	1982–1982
In Re Doe green ca4 · 1981 1 sentence 1982If, however, the material sought is opinion work product containing “fruits of the attorney’s [or agent’s] mental processes,” In re Doe, supra at 1076 n. 2, the party seeking production can overcome the work product privilege only with “a showing of extreme necessity.” AT & T, supra, Guideline No. 18, at 632; see Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 401-02 , 101 S.Ct. 677, 688-689 , 66 L.Ed.2d 584 (1981) (need for stronger showing of necessity than “substantial need”); In re Sealed Case, supra, at 811 (must show extraordinary necessity).	1	1982–1982

Statutes the citing opinions construe

USC § 18u.s.c.3500 (5) DC § D.C. Code § 23-110 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

CA 160 (1962–2026) TX 159 (1984–2026) FL 155 (1961–2026) OH 131 (1978–2026) PA 109 (1973–2026) IL 76 (1980–2025) WA 72 (1975–2025) MA 54 (1980–2025) NJ 52 (1950–2026) IN 46 (1976–2025) MO 43 (1977–2025) NC 40 (1990–2024) NY 40 (1964–2024) VA 37 (1970–2018) CT 34 (1969–2021) MI 34 (1975–2025) AL 26 (1987–2014) CO 26 (1981–2025) WV 25 (1984–2025) AZ 25 (1970–2025) TN 24 (1968–2024) MD 23 (1977–2025) IA 21 (1993–2024) MT 20 (1981–2018) RI 19 (1978–2025) DE 18 (1967–2025) GA 18 (1970–2021) KY 17 (1985–2024) NV 16 (1997–2019) LA 16 (1983–2025) OK 14 (1983–2026) DC 13 (1977–2023) MS 13 (1992–2023) NH 13 (1967–2021) NM 13 (1966–2025) ME 13 (2007–2019) WI 10 (1975–2003) UT 8 (1990–2023) HI 7 (1982–2023) AK 7 (1978–2018) KS 6 (1999–2019) ND 5 (1978–2022) MN 5 (1979–2024) OR 4 (1998–2023) AR 4 (1996–2009) SC 4 (1997–2019) VT 3 (1990–2023) SD 3 (1989–1999)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check