There are a few limits to discovery,
One is work product, found in 26(b)(3)
To determine if work product, you must ask
The question Professor C taught us in class:
Were the tangible things created in anticipation,
Of some sort of upcoming litigation?
If opinions, impressions, and conclusions you can deduct
The more likely its privileged work product
When submitting discovery evidence, remember to Redact
Striking out work product in one swift act
Work product is a qualified immunity
Forming a defensive shield against discovery
However, this shield can be overcome
If your opponent just demonstrates some:
Undue hardship and substantial need
Then you must submit it, against your greed
If the lawyer creates work product and is a good sport
His written opinions can't be introduced in court
Or otherwise revealed to the other side
So he can tell his opponent: "turn around, take a ride"
Often is the issue of whether the FRCP
Requires the consulted attorney
To provide statements compiled in lawsuit preparation
To the court and the opponent who be hatin'
One case exemplifying where this issue has arisen
Is the monumental case: Taylor v. Hickman
Now let's go back, back to 1943,
When the J.M. Taylor sank, and made big history.
Five died in the wreck, with Hickman being one,
Four of the suits settled, but not all was done.
Now there was a public hearing, available to everyone,
But Hickman wanted to discover everything under the Sun.
Hickman wanted the notes from the owners of the Taylor,
When he was refused, he became a work-product hater.
The lawyer Fortenbaugh, now anticipatin' litigation,
Interviewed some people, and got all related information.
Now Taylor's attorney was Mr. Fortenbaugh,
And they wanted this information kept from Hickman and all.
Since the interviews were not exactly with Fortenbaugh's clients,
With no attorney-client privy, he could not be defiant.
But the issue still remained from the interview sessions:
What about Mr. Fortenbaugh's mental impressions?
The Court saw them as a sort of sacred ground,
And found Hickman's argument to view them unsound.
So Hickman could not view Fortenbaugh's good wits,
Because he did not show lots of unfair prejudice.
The Court decided to create a qualified immunity,
Which was then codified into Rule 26(b)(3).
While we want to protect lawyers' thoughts and strategies,
You can discover work product with undue hardship and substantial needs.
Now we have established some work product facts,
Let's get some clarification on some other knick-knacks.
Now to fully understand work product and other close connections,
There a few things you should know, to keep your files protected,
Since attorney client privilege applies to legal advice,
b/w an attorney and client, an issue will arise,
When your client is a corporation, who is the client in fact?
Before Upjohn, it was only the high level execs,
But no need to worry, when advising lower level workers of essentials,
As Upjohn extended the privilege to them, as long as they keep it confidential.
Now to make work product more clear to you and me,
You need to know if the work product is an opinion, or just ordinary,
An opinion goes to the heart of a lawyer's strategy and technique,
While ordinary work product is nothing unique,
The more opinion it is, the harder for the other party to get,
Where ordinary requires a lower proof of substantial need and hardship.
26b5 says you must record the nature of your documents in a privilege log,
So you can tell the other attorney to keep their filthy hands off,
And this should be taken seriously, as the court in Breon made it an important factor,
Where one party provided only an outline, and had to provide all that was asked for .
One last thing to note, if you're ever unsure
Facts are always, dis-co-ver-able,
And if you ever forget anything about work product,
As Professor C made it clear, just look in the rule book!