• Perelman v. Raymond G. Perelman Revocable Trust

    Publication Date: 2021-08-09
    Practice Area: Discovery
    Industry: Legal Services
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge King
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 21-0899

    Appellant trust appealed order denying the motion for a protective order and directing appellee Cozen to produce certain documents during discovery and court found trial court did not err in applying the self-defense exception in profession conduct rule 1.6(c)(4) in this case but did err in declining to find that the parties had not waived privileges for other confidential communications relating to the same subject matter. Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

  • Fabian v. USI Serv. Group, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2021-07-26
    Practice Area: Discovery
    Industry: Real Estate
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lehigh County
    Judge: Judge Johnson
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 21-0721

    The moving defendants failed to produce evidence to support a finding of good cause for a protective or confidentiality order or evidence to suggest that prejudice would result from the production of the documents sought in discovery. The court denied the moving defendants' request for a protective order.

  • Wagner v. Premier Orthopaedic & Sports Med. Assoc., Ltd.

    Publication Date: 2021-07-19
    Practice Area: Discovery
    Industry: Health Care
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Chester County
    Judge: Judge Tunnell
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 21-0688

    While not in the same form as plaintiff had anticipated, the audit trail defendant produced regarding her medical records reflected what the court understood to be the information plaintiff sought and was substantially similar to the audit trail she believed she should have received. The court denied plaintiff's motion to compel.

  • Allegheny County Dist. Attorney's Office v. Wereschagin

    Publication Date: 2021-07-05
    Practice Area: Discovery
    Industry: State and Local Government | Technology Media and Telecom
    Court: Commonwealth Court
    Judge: Judge Jubelirer
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 21-0755

    The trial court properly reversed two determinations of the Office of Open Records where the Allegheny County District Attorney's Office demonstrated that the release of certain law enforcement surveillance camera network system information would pose a security risk and, thus, should be excluded under the public safety and infrastructure security exceptions to the Right-to-Know Law. The commonwealth court affirmed.

  • Upper Merion Area Sch. Dist. v. Montgomery County Bd. of Assessment Appeals

    Publication Date: 2021-06-28
    Practice Area: Discovery
    Industry: State and Local Government
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Montgomery County
    Judge: Judge Saltz
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 21-0616

    A school district's failure to institute a timely and thorough litigation hold resulted in the spoliation of evidence, so the court imposed a sanction of a permissive adverse inference at trial.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Georgia Construction Law Handbook 2024

    Authors: T. BART GARY, JAKE CARROLL

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Braverman v. Winig

    Publication Date: 2021-05-31
    Practice Area: Discovery
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
    Judge: Judge Fletman
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 21-0505

    A party waived any right to an attorney-client privilege with respect to a narrative, because she voluntarily revealed it to third parties. The court granted a motion compelling her to produce all versions of the narrative.

  • In re: Estate of W. McAleer

    Publication Date: 2021-04-19
    Practice Area: Discovery
    Industry:
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Wecht
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 21-0422

    The high court split on whether the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine protect communications between a trustee and counsel from discovery by beneficiaries when the communications arose in the context of adversarial proceedings between those parties, but found that disclosure would nevertheless result from the competing positions set forth by a majority of justices. The high court affirmed the lower court's alternative ruling.

  • Virnelson v. Johnson Matthey, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2021-03-01
    Practice Area: Discovery
    Industry: Consulting | Manufacturing | Pharmaceuticals
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Lazarus
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 21-0226

    Trial court properly found defendants' consulting firm report, prepared after employee died in an industrial accident, was discoverable because consulting firm was not hired, and their report was not prepared, in anticipation of litigation. Affirmed.

  • McCowan v. City of Philadelphia

    Publication Date: 2021-02-01
    Practice Area: Discovery
    Industry: State and Local Government
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
    Judge: District Judge Marston
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 21-0106

    City defendants moved for reconsideration of order denying their motion to quash plaintiffs' subpoena to law firm that city hired to investigate gender and sexual harassment complaints and court found defendants admitted they failed to satisfy their burden on the motion to quash and court declined to reconsider its previous ruling but court clarified nothing in the previous order prohibited attorney or law firm from raising attorney-client privilege as to specific documents. Motion granted in part and denied in part.

  • Harkey v. Stojakovich

    Publication Date: 2020-12-21
    Practice Area: Discovery
    Industry: Technology Media and Telecom | Transportation
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lycoming County
    Judge: Judge Linhardt
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 20-1306

    While defendants made a threshold showing that plaintiff's social media account information could be relevant, their request for all account postings lacked the requisite particularity necessary to avoid undue embarrassment and burden upon plaintiff and potential third parties. The trial court denied defendants' motion to compel discovery.