Federal Rule of Evidence 612 and the Work Product Doctrine-Conflict or Congruity?

Arizona State Law Journal, p. 543, 1986

17 Pages Posted: 27 Aug 2009

See all articles by Jeffrie G. Murphy

Jeffrie G. Murphy

Arizona State University College of Law

Date Written: 1986

Abstract

In this case note, Professor O’Grady examines the principles of the work product doctrine, established by the United States Supreme Court in the seminal case Hickman v. Taylor, and concludes that the Third Circuit correctly classified an attorney's selection and compilation of documents as opinion work product. Furthermore, in this case note she examines the purposes and policies behind Federal Rule of Evidence 612 and suggests that the protection from discovery enjoyed by opinion work product should not be deemed automatically waived when a client or witness examines an attorney's opinion work product before testifying at trial or deposition.

Keywords: Work product, deposition, opinion work product

Suggested Citation

Murphy, Jeffrie G., Federal Rule of Evidence 612 and the Work Product Doctrine-Conflict or Congruity? (1986). Arizona State Law Journal, p. 543, 1986, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1462877

Jeffrie G. Murphy (Contact Author)

Arizona State University College of Law ( email )

Box 877906
Tempe, AZ 85287-7906
United States
(480) 965-5856 (Phone)
(480) 965-2427 (Fax)

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
24
Abstract Views
562
PlumX Metrics