52 New Jersey opinions name it 3 courts 1950–2026 12 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Jersey 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Martin O'boyle v. Borough of Longportgreen2 sentences2026Hence, the work- product doctrine recognizes the need for lawyers to "work with a certain degree of privacy, free from unnecessary intrusion by opposing parties and their counsel." O'Boyle v. Borough of Longport, 218 N.J. 168, 189 (2014). 2026On the other hand, the work-product privilege addresses the “concern that without adequate protection of the product of an attorney's work, justice and clients' best interests would be undermined.” O'Boyle v. Borough of Longport, 218 N.J. 168, 189 (2014). | 10 | 10 |
Hickman v. Taylorgreen2 sentences2026Codified in Rule 4:10-2(c), the work-product doctrine recognizes the need for lawyers to "'work with a certain degree of privacy, free from unnecessary intrusion by opposing parties and their counsel.'" O'Boyle v. Borough of Longport, 218 N.J. 168, 189 (2014) (quoting Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 511 (1947)). 2024Codified in Rule 4:10-2(c), the work-product doctrine recognizes the need for lawyers to "work with a certain degree of privacy, free from unnecessary intrusion by opposing parties and their counsel." O'Boyle, 218 N.J. at 189 (quoting Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 510 (1947)). | 7 | 16 |
Jenkins v. Rainnergreen2 sentences2001Therefore, Watford's statement is protected by the work product privilege provided by Rule 4:10-2(c). *1294 Plaintiff did not undertake to show that she is entitled to obtain Watford's statement because she has "substantial need" for the statement "in the preparation of [her] case and is unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent... by other means." R. 4:10-2(c); see Jenkins v. Rainner, 69 N.J. 50, 55-58 , 350 A. 2d 473 (1976). 2001Therefore, Watford's statement is protected by the work product privilege provided by Rule 4:10-2(c). *1294 Plaintiff did not undertake to show that she is entitled to obtain Watford's statement because she has "substantial need" for the statement "in the preparation of [her] case and is unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent... by other means." R. 4:10-2(c); see Jenkins v. Rainner, 69 N.J. 50, 55-58 , 350 A. 2d 473 (1976). | 2 | 6 |
Medford v. Duggangreen2 sentences2022In ordering discovery of such materials when the required showing has been made, the court shall protect against disclosure of the mental impressions, A-1562-21 8 conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of an attorney or other representative of a party concerning the litigation. [(Emphasis added).] 3 The work-product privilege is "not limited to documents prepared by an attorney." Medford v. Duggan, 323 N.J. 2020Super. 144, 150 (App. Div. 2001), any documents prepared by counsel are privileged work- product because the "dominant purpose in preparing . . . [them] was concern about potential litigation and the anticipation of litigation was objectively reasonable." Defendants further argue Wells has not overcome the work product privilege, by showing "(1) that [s]he has a substantial need for the requested documents; and (2) that [s]he is unable, without undue hardship, to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means." Medford v. Duggan, 323 N.J. | 2 | 5 |
United States v. Noblesgreen2 sentences2025The work product privilege "is not absolute." United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 239 (1975). 2019In United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 238 (1975), the Court made clear that the work product doctrine applies in criminal cases, explaining that "[a]t 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." The work product privilege is recognized in our Rules of Court. | 2 | 3 |
Sussex Commons Associates, LLC v. Rutgersgreen2 sentences2020"Documents that satisfy the OPRA definition of government record are not subject to public access if they fall within the work-product doctrine." O'Boyle v. Borough of Longport, 218 N.J. 168, 188 (2014) (citing Sussex Commons Assocs., LLC v. Rutgers, 210 N.J. 531 542 (2012); Gannett N.J. 2014Sussex Commons Assocs., LLC v. Rutgers, the State Univ., 210 N.J. 531, 548 , 46 A.3d 536 (2012). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Montaguegreen2 sentences2025State v. Mingo, 77 N.J. 576, 584 (1978) (citing State v. Montague, 55 N.J. 387, 401 (1970)). 2019"The development of the attorney's work product privilege was mainly designed 'to afford a measure of protection to the attorney's privacy against pretrial disclosure of his litigation strategies, his mental processes and the like.'" Mingo, 77 N.J. at 584 (quoting State v. Montague, 55 N.J. 387, 401 (1970)). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Mingogreen2 sentences2025State v. Mingo, 77 N.J. 576, 584 (1978) (citing State v. Montague, 55 N.J. 387, 401 (1970)). 2019"The development of the attorney's work product privilege was mainly designed 'to afford a measure of protection to the attorney's privacy against pretrial disclosure of his litigation strategies, his mental processes and the like.'" Mingo, 77 N.J. at 584 (quoting State v. Montague, 55 N.J. 387, 401 (1970)). | 1 | 4 |
K.L. v. Evesham Township Board of Educationgreen2 sentences2026Bd. of Educ., 423 N.J. 2014Sussex Commons, supra, 210 N.J. at 542 , 46 A.3d 536 ; K.L., supra, 423 N.J.Super. at 352-53 , 32 A.3d 1136 ; Gannett, supra, 379 N.J.Super. at 218-19 , 877 A.2d 330 . | 1 | 3 |
In Re Chevron Corp.green2 sentences2022Thus, as to waiver of the work-product privilege, the O'Boyle Court credited the "prevailing view" and wrote "the inquiry considers whether the disclosed material reached an adversary or whether the disclosure . . . made it substantially A-1562-21 13 likely that the protected material would reach an adversary." Ibid. (citing In re Chevron Corp., 633 F.3d 153, 165 (3d Cir. 2011)). 2014Id. at 164 . | 1 | 3 |
Miller v. JB Hunt Transportgreen2 sentences2025Hunt Transp., Inc., 339 N.J. 2002Hunt Transport, 339 N.J.Super. 144 , 770 A. 2d 1288 (App.Div.2001). | 1 | 2 |
Gannett NJ Partners v. Middlesexgreen2 sentences2020Partners, L.P. v. Cty. of Middlesex, 379 N.J. 2014Sussex Commons, supra, 210 N.J. at 542 , 46 A.3d 536 ; K.L., supra, 423 N.J.Super. at 352-53 , 32 A.3d 1136 ; Gannett, supra, 379 N.J.Super. at 218-19 , 877 A.2d 330 . | 1 | 2 |
Wilson v. Browngreen2 sentences2014More specifically, if the plaintiff is seeking “disclosure of privileged records,” such as those protected by the work-product doctrine, he must show “particularized need.” Wilson v. Brown, 404 N.J.Super. 557, 583 , 962 A.2d 1122 (App.Div.) (citing McClain v. Coll. 2014More specifically, if the plaintiff is seeking “disclosure of privileged records,” such as those protected by the work-product doctrine, he must show “particularized need.” Wilson v. Brown, 404 N.J.Super. 557, 583 , 962 A.2d 1122 (App.Div.) (citing McClain v. Coll. | 1 | 2 |
Lynn Martin, Secretary of Labor v. Bally's Park Place Hotel & Casino and Occupational Safety & Health Review Commissiongreen2 sentences2001Consistent with these authorities, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has concluded that to assert the work product privilege, the party preparing or ordering preparation of a document must have "belie[ved] that litigation [would] result" and that belief must have been "objectively reasonable." Martin v. Bally's Park Place Hotel & Casino, supra, 983 F. 2d at 1260 . 1999See Martin v. Bally's Park Place Hotel & Casino, 983 F. 2d 1252, 1258 (3d Cir.1993) (in considering the nature of the document and the factual situation of the case, if the document can fairly be said to have been prepared or obtained because of the prospect of litigation, it is protected by the work-product privilege); see also Askew v. Hardman, 918 P. 2d 469, 474 (Utah 1996); Spaulding v. Denton, 68 F.R.D. 342 (D.Del.1975); Basinger v. Glacier Carriers, Inc., 107 F.R.D. 771 (M.D.Pa.1985); Haynes v. Anderson, 597 So. 2d 615, 619 (Miss.1992). | 1 | 2 |
Scott v. Salernogreen1 sentence2026We "can consider a case only to the point at which it had been unfolded below." Scott v. Salerno, 297 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Paladino v. Auletto Enters., Inc.green2 sentences2026The work-product doctrine is an exception to "New Jersey's general policy of encouraging full and open discovery of all relevant information." Paladino v. Auletto Enters., Inc., 459 N.J. 2026Determining whether the work-product doctrine applies to each document requires "a case-by-case, fact-specific analysis." Paladino, 459 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Carbis Sales, Inc. v. Eisenberggreen1 sentence2026Super. at 374 (citing Carbis Sales, Inc. v. Eisenberg, 397 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
In Re the Liquidation of Integrity Insurancegreen1 sentence2025Co., 165 N.J. 75, 82 (2000). | 1 | 1 |
Halbach v. Boymangreen1 sentence2022Super. 127, 133 (App. Div. 1999); see also Halbach v. Boyman, 377 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Otto v. Box U.S.A. Group, Inc.green1 sentence2022Grp., 177 F.R.D. 698, 699 (N.D. | 1 | 1 |
| No. 90-5901green | 1 | 1 |
| Mason v. City of Hobokengreen | 1 | 1 |
| Redland Soccer Club, Inc. v. Department of the Army of the United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Grand Jury. In the Matter of Granite Purchases for State Capital-Grand Jury Subpoena Number 86-1. Appeal of United States of Americagreen | 1 | 1 |
| American Oil Co. v. Pennsylvania Petroleum Products Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. John G. McKay Jr.green | 1 | 1 |
| Haynes v. Andersongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Askew v. Hardmangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hercules Inc. v. Exxon Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| The Duplan Corporation v. Moulinage Et Retorderie De Chavanoz, Deering Milliken, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Thompson v. Hoitsmagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Jersey. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Williams
green
2 sentences2024That numbering coincides with what is now Rule 3:13- 3(b)(2)(A) to (D). 5 The work product rule was previously Rule 3:13(c); it is now Rule 3:13(d). 20 discovery, to disclose to the State inculpatory evidence uncovered by defense counsel during his preparation for trial and then allow the State to use that evidence as part of its case in chief.” Id. at 479 . 2020Williams, 80 N.J. at 478-79 . 2 Defendant contends on appeal that the statement is work product as it was taken at the direction of his counsel. | 2 | 2020–2024 |
Pfender v. Torres
green
2 sentences2019Ibid. 2019Id. at 391-92 , 765 A.2d 208 . | 2 | 2019–2019 |
LaPorta v. GLOUCESTER COUNTY BD.
green
2 sentences2014Ibid. 23 The Appellate Division held that a memo prepared by the county counsel about his investigation, a memo from the person holding LaPorta’s position on a temporary basis to the county counsel in response to an inquiry from him, and a lengthy statement given by the county counsel to the county prosecutor were county counsel’s work product and that the county counsel did not waive the privilege afforded by the work-product doctrine when he shared those documents with the county prosecutor. 2014Id. at 259 . | 2 | 2012–2014 |
O'BOYLE v. Borough of Longport
green
2 sentences2014Id. at 8-9 , 42 A.3d 910 . 2014Id. at 8-9 , 42 A.3d 910 . | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Wylie v. Mills
green
2 sentences1997In order for the doctrine to apply, the materials must have been prepared in anticipation of litigation and not in the ordinary course of business, Wylie, supra, 195 N.J.Super. at 337 , 478 A.2d 1273 , and there must not be a “substantial need” for the materials. 1997In order for the doctrine to apply, the materials must have been prepared in anticipation of litigation and not in the ordinary course of business, Wylie, supra, 195 N.J.Super. at 337 , 478 A.2d 1273 , and there must not be a “substantial need” for the materials. | 2 | 1992–1997 |
Rivard v. American Home Products, Inc.
green
1 sentence2026"Generally, a document will be deemed to have been prepared in anticipation of litigation when the dominant purpose in its preparation was concern for potential litigation, the prospect of which was objectively reasonable." Rivard, 391 N.J. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Payton v. New Jersey Turnpike Authority
green
2 sentences2026In order for the work-product doctrine to apply, "the materials must have been prepared in anticipation of litigation and not in the ordinary course of business." Id. at 554 . 2026In order for the work-product doctrine to apply, "the materials must have been prepared in anticipation of litigation and not in the ordinary course of business." Id. at 554 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Tractenberg v. Township of West Orange
green
1 sentence2017With respect to the work product analysis, plaintiff's heavy reliance on this court's opinion in Tractenberg v. Township of 16 A-4347-15T1 West Orange, 416 N.J. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Vega
green
2 sentences2014Hosp., 99 N.J. 346, 351 , 492 A.2d 991 (1985)), certif. denied, 198 N.J. 473 , 968 A.2d 1189 (2009). 2014Hosp., 99 N.J. 346, 351 , 492 A.2d 991 (1985)), certif. denied, 198 N.J. 473 , 968 A.2d 1189 (2009). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
McClain v. College Hospital
green
2 sentences2014Hosp., 99 N.J. 346, 351 , 492 A.2d 991 (1985)), certif. denied, 198 N.J. 473 , 968 A.2d 1189 (2009). 2014Hosp., 99 N.J. 346, 351 , 492 A.2d 991 (1985)), certif. denied, 198 N.J. 473 , 968 A.2d 1189 (2009). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Renz v. Beeman green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| In Re Ford Motor Company green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Graham v. Gielchinsky green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Grinnell Corp. v. Hackett green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Pippenger v. Gruppe green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Tartaglia v. Paine Webber, Inc. neutral | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Krisa v. Equitable Life Assurance Society green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Hannan v. St. Joseph's Hosp. green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| State v. DeMarco green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Spaulding v. Denton green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Basinger v. Glacier Carriers, Inc. green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Werkheiser v. Warren green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Goldberg v. United States green | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| State v. Kociolek green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| Newark v. Division of Tax Appeals, Dept. of Treasury green | 1 | 1972–1972 |
| Frank C. Sparks Company v. Huber Baking Company green | 1 | 1968–1968 |
| Hickman v. Taylor green | 1 | 1950–1950 |
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.
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.