The actions and impressions of a non-lawyer sent by counsel to conduct an interview were subject to work product privilege.
Judge Tennille held that the interviewer (Ms. Lister):
declined to answer questions which called for her mental impressions and litigation strategy based upon attorney-client privilege and work product. Ms. Lister conducted the interview at the direction and
The Court granted a Motion for Protective Order over the objection of the North Carolina Department of Revenue in tax refund litigation. The opinion is very short, but the Briefs have good general discussion on protective order issues.
Defendant’s Brief in Opposition to Motion for Protective Order
The only place that you are likely to find a written opinion from a North Carolina Court on a discovery issue is from the Business Court. Those kinds of interlocutory issues just don’t get addressed by appellate courts.
So, here’s a post about a (very) short June 10, 2008 Order in Harco National Insurance Co. v. BDO
.jpg)
The Court granted a Motion for Protective Order yesterday in Delhaize America, Inc. v. Hinton. There’s nothing particularly remarkable about the entry of a Protective Order, which usually happens by consent, but this Protective Order may set some precedent in future Business Court cases.
The case involves the type of tax refund litigation which is
The "General Objections" that many lawyers put up front in their responses to discovery requests may not be effective. The Business Court held that such objections may violate the Rules of Civil Procedure, which require a party to state its objections in response to each interrogatory:
Rule 33 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure
Hilb Rogal & Hobbs Co. v. Sellars, 2008 NCBC 12 (N.C. Super. Ct. June 6, 2008)(Diaz)
It is very common to get discovery responses which have "General Objections" up front, followed by specific objections to each of the numbered discovery requests.
There’s a danger in responding that way, based on Judge Diaz’s opinion today
Compliance with the meet and confer obligations contained in Business Court Rule 18.6 is essential before the filing of a discovery motion.
In this case, the Court denied the Plaintiff’s Motion for a Protective Order because of counsel’s failure to comply with the certification requirements of that Rule. Judge Tennille held that "this reason alone
There is no attorney client privilege or work product privilege between lawyers and their experts regarding information exchanged between them, even if the expert is also the client.
The Court held:"Plaintiff’s assertion of the attorney client privilege to shield discovery of any communications with counsel involving his expert opinions is misplaced. Expert witnesses are subject
This short Order has a valuable nugget on the discoverability of communications between lawyers and their expert witnesses.
One of the Defendants moved to compel discovery from the Plaintiff to obtain documents exchanged between the Plaintiff’s lawyers and their expert.
The expert, however, was also the President of the client and the central fact witness. Plaintiff resisted production on the