text:
RI (12)
TX (16)
VA (127)
Case Name: Kohl v. Werner Co., Case No. 16-CV-1021, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65774, at *1 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 19, 2018)
"Plaintiff Who Videotaped the Defendant's Lawyer and Expert Loses His 'Karma' Work Product Argument"'
Nearly every court protects as work product personal injury defense lawyers' secret surveillance videotapes of plaintiffs engaging in activities that belie their injury claims. Not surprisingly, those courts normally require defense lawyers to produce any videotapes that they intend to use at trial -- although wise courts delay that production until after the defense lawyer has deposed the plaintiff.
In Kohl v. Werner Co., the defense lawyer "learned that an investigator for the plaintiff was videotaping and surveilling defense counsel and the defense expert while they were performing the inspection" of an accident scene. Case No. 16-CV-1021, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65774, at *1 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 19, 2018). Defendants claimed that the plaintiff "improperly infringed on the defense counsel's work product" and sought an order "requiring the plaintiff to produce the videotape." Id. at *1-2. Predictably, plaintiff's lawyer "attempts to liken its surveillance of defense counsel to situations where a plaintiff is surveilled as he goes about his daily life." Id. at *3. The court rejected plaintiff's argument – bluntly noting "[t]hat is a far cry from what happened here. It was the defense counsel and his expert that were surveilled, not the client." Id.
The court ordered plaintiff to produce the videotape.
(holding that a surveillance videotape was discoverable only if a litigant would use it at trial; "It is well-established that surveillance videos and other materials prepared by a party's investigator in anticipation of or in connection with litigation are attorney work product. . . . It is also well-established that although the existence of the surveillance must be disclosed upon request whether or not it will be used at trial, the content of the surveillance is discoverable only if it will be used at trial."; "Here, it is undisputed that Hunt does not intend to use the 2016 surveillance video at trial. Thus, the content of the video is not discoverable absent a showing of extraordinary circumstances."; "We have not overlooked Respondent's argument that because Hunt intends to use the 2014 surveillance video at trial, the 2016 video must also be produced in discovery. However, under the circumstances of this case, we do not find this argument -- or the federal cases on which it is based -- persuasive because the videos at issue in this case do not depict a continuous period of surveillance such that principles of fairness and completeness require the production of the later video in conjunction with the earlier video. Rather, the videos involve entirely separate periods of surveillance that were two years apart and were conducted by different companies.")
(addressing work product issues related to a surveillance video tape a defendant took of a supposedly injured plaintiff; "Plaintiffs argue that the total duration of surveillance performed on Ms. Roach is relevant to the surveillance video that Defendants will introduce at trial. . . . Plaintiffs argue that the jury is entitled to know the full duration of Defendants' surveillance in order to weigh the accuracy of what is depicted on that portion of the surveillance video that Defendants anticipate using as evidence. Plaintiffs contend that the total duration of surveillance puts the surveillance video in the appropriate context and is relevant to the weight of the surveillance video evidence. The Court agrees and finds that the information sought by Plaintiffs is relevant to the surveillance video evidence Defendants purport to introduce at trial.")
(addressing work product issues related to a surveillance video tape a defendant took of a supposedly injured plaintiff; "The Court does not conclude that it erred regarding the production of the second investigator's surveillance video. The Magistrate found that 'the video taken by the second investigator is afforded work product protection because the Defendants do not intend to call the second investigator as a witness and they will not use the video for evidentiary purposes at trial' and was 'not persuaded that the Plaintiffs have demonstrated substantial need for production so as to overcome the work product protection afforded this second video.'")
Case Name: Pinkney v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., Civil Action No.: CV214-075, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129604, at *4-5 (S.D. Ga. Sept. 15, 2014)
("While the surveillance video is subject to discovery, the Court retains the discretion to determine the timing of such discovery. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d). Consistent with this Court's recent decision in Pate v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., No. CV213-166, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25494, at *3 (S.D. Ga Feb. 20, 2014), the Court finds that Defendant should have an opportunity to depose Plaintiff and Mr. Overstreet based on their own independent, unrefreshed recollections of the incident, prior to producing the surveillance video. Plaintiff will not suffer any prejudice from delaying production of the surveillance video. If either deponent has limited recollection as to any details of the incident, he or she may testify to that.").
Case Name: Sowell v. Target Corp., Case No. 5:14-cv-93-RS-GRJ, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72435 (N.D. Fla. May 28, 2014)
(finding that defendant Target created a video tape in the ordinary course of business and that the tape did not become work product because Target preserved it; ordering the tape produced to the plaintiff before her deposition; "Courts addressing this issue like the issue of whether the surveillance videos are work product have taken conflicting views on whether production of the video should be delayed. District courts ordering that delay in production is justified have relied primarily upon the rationale that requiring a plaintiff to provide independent recollection of the incident does not prejudice the plaintiff and delaying disclosure of the video precludes any possibility of a plaintiff tailoring her testimony to the video. . . . In contrast, courts that have refused to delay disclosure of surveillance videos have focused upon whether the video was to be used solely for impeachment purposes or was to be used as substantive evidence."; "While the Court concludes there may be circumstances justifying delay in disclosure of a surveillance tape, the Court finds that Defendant here has not pointed to any justification for delaying disclosure of the tape other than unsupported speculation that the Plaintiff's testimony may be altered in some way to reflect the events on the surveillance tape.")
Case Name: Roa v. Tetrick, Case No. 1:13-cv-379, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24619, at *7-8 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 24, 2014)
(finding that the work product doctrine protected defendant's surveillance videotape of a plaintiff, but that the plaintiff could overcome the work product protection; allowing plaintiff to depose defendant's investigator, but protecting opinion work product; "As defendants point out, courts have uniformly ordered the discovery of surveillance videos in cases like this despite their status as work product. . . . Courts ordering the discovery of surveillance videos have done so recognizing that video or film can sometimes be misleading or incomplete, depending on editing or other circumstances.")
(finding that the work product doctrine protected defendant's surveillance video tape of a plaintiff, but that the plaintiff could overcome the work product protection; allowing plaintiff to depose defendant's investigator, but protecting opinion work product; "Here, any photographic or audio information or materials taken in conjunction with the surveillance of plaintiffs and their family are similar to the video evidence already produced and should in fairness be disclosed to plaintiffs. Like video evidence, photographic or audio evidence is potentially subject to distortion or manipulation and may be misleading depending on the context in which it was produced or presented. . . . In fairness, plaintiffs should be given the opportunity to examine these materials to prevent the potential for selective and misleading presentation of the evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 502(a)(3).")
(holding that a secret tape recording can be protected work product, after the ABA issued an opinion finding that such tape recording was not unethical; "Pursuant to Rule 26(b)(3)(C), '[a]ny party or other person may, on request and without the required showing, obtain the person's own previous statement about the action or its subject matter.'. . . Plaintiff argues that if a witness properly requests his own statement under this rule, disclosure should be delayed until after the deposition. The Court agrees. . . . Although the Court acknowledges Defendant's concern that the recording of the Prices was made three years ago, and thus the Prices have little memory of what was said, Rule 26(b)(3)(C) does not entitle parties to immediate discovery of their previous statements.")
Case Name: Muzaffarr v. Ross Dress For Less, Inc., 941 F. Supp. 2d 1373, 1375 (S.D. Fla. 2013)
("The undersigned adopts the analysis in a case not cited by either party, Dehart v. Wal-Mart Stores, East, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 605, 2006 WL 83405 (W.D. Va. 2006). In Dehart, the Court distinguished between surveillance tapes used solely for impeachment purposes, and surveillance tapes having predominantly substantive value as evidence of the underlying facts surrounding the incident giving rise to the plaintiff's complaint."; "In this case, the videotape at issue depicts the incident giving rise to the Plaintiff's complaint. While it could be offered for impeachment value, the primary evidentiary value of such a tape is as proof of the underlying facts surrounding the incident. Therefore, the videotape should be produced to the Plaintiff prior to her deposition.")
Case Name: McClure v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., 124 So/ 3d 998, 998, 999 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)
(holding that a grocery store's surveillance video tape of a personal injury plaintiff deserved work product protection, and that the defendant could depose the plaintiff before producing the video tape; "Petitioner, Judith McClure, a plaintiff in a slip and fall negligence case, seeks certiorari review of an order compelling her deposition prior to the production of a store security video of the slip and fall."; "The trial court denied McClure's motion, permitting Publix to delay production of the video until it had completed a deposition of McClure. McClure's petition to this court followed."; "The petitioner has not shown that if she answers questions at a deposition, prior to production of the security store video showing the fall, that any harm will occur or that the video will somehow conflict with her statements at the deposition. Moreover, petitioner has not shown the trial court's order shall, in any meaningful sense, delay McClure's discovery.")
Case Name: Smith v. Chen, 2013-Ohio-4931, at ¶¶ 24, 27, 28 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013)
("The court's conclusion that the surveillance video will affect the substantive issue of damages was not an abuse of discretion. Plaintiff claimed in his complaint that he suffered a loss of enjoyment of life and an inability to engage in daily activities as a result of his injuries. Thus, the surveillance video will help to establish or negate the extent of plaintiff's damages."; "[T]he trial court's conclusion that plaintiff had a compelling need to view the video prior to trial, to ascertain 'in advance if the video images have somehow been manipulated, or if the person on the video is actually Plaintiff,' was an accurate conclusion."; "While plaintiff may so structure his trial testimony, if plaintiff's trial testimony differs from his deposition testimony, taken before plaintiff had a chance to view the video, defendants will be able to impeach plaintiff with his deposition testimony. If plaintiff's trial and deposition testimony are the same, then the video will either impeach plaintiff's testimony, or it will not, because plaintiff's testimony will align with the images on the video.")
2013-01-01 State OH B 5/14
Case Name: Fare v. Doe, 66 Va. Cir. 61, 62 (Va. Cir. Ct. 2004)
(finding that the work product doctrine did not protect surveillance videotape relied upon by a doctor in preparing an independent medical examination; ordering the surveillance videotape produced before trial, but allowing defendant to depose the plaintiff first; "Virginia circuit courts vary on when video surveillance should be disclosed; however, the courts have consistently held that, if a defendant intends to use a video at trial, that the defendant will have the right to depose the plaintiff prior to disclosure of the video. See Fender v. Norfolk Southern Ry., 55 Va. Cir. 344, 346 (City of Norfolk 2001); Runions v. Norfolk & Western Ry., 51 Va. Cir. 341, 344 (City of Roanoke 2000); McIntyre v. CSX Transp., Inc., 22 Va. Cir. 302, 302-03 (City of Richmond 1990). The facts of this case are distinguishable from the opinions cited above in that this video may not only be introduced at trial, but was relied on by Defendant's expert in the Independent Medical Examination. Not only must the Court consider that, if the video were not disclosed until trial, the Plaintiff would be prejudiced by not being adequately prepared at trial, but also, Plaintiff would be prejudiced by not being afforded the opportunity to show the video to Plaintiff's experts in advance of trial so that Plaintiff's experts may use the video in forming their opinions. The Court must find a balance between Plaintiff's interests and Defendant's interest in not disclosing the video until after Plaintiff has been deposed. The parties have agreed to continue the trial for this matter that was previously scheduled on November 10, 2004. The Court orders that Defendant has the right to depose Plaintiff prior to disclosure of the surveillance video but requires that Defendant promptly produce the video to Plaintiff after Plaintiff's deposition and in no case later than ninety days prior to trial.")
Case Name: Fender v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 55 Va. Cir. 344, 346 (Va. Cir. Ct. 2001)
("This Court rules that if there are surveillance videotapes of Defendant which will be used at any time during the trial of the instant case, that Defendant's counsel shall notify Plaintiff's counsel at least twenty days before the trial date of the existence of such videotapes and true copies of same shall be provided to counsel for Plaintiff by counsel for Defendant at least fifteen days prior to trial. If the time schedules set forth in the preceding sentence are not complied with, surveillance videotapes may not be utilized by Defendant at trial. In any event, before Defendant is required to provide the surveillance videotapes as required in the preceding paragraph, the deposition of the Plaintiff and responses to all interrogatories and other discovery materials as contemplated by the existing Scheduling Order will have been provided by Plaintiff to Defendant.")
Case Name: Stanley v. Norfolk S. Ry., No. CL990662 (Va. Cir. Ct. (Alexandria) Aug. 30, 2000) (summary at Va. Law. Wkly. 002-8-213, at 4 (Feb. 5, 2001))
(holding that defendant's surveillance videotape of a plaintiff deserved work product protection, but that the plaintiff "has shown a substantial need to discover" the surveillance videotape; requiring defendant to produce the videotape after the plaintiff's deposition)
Case Name: Gutshall v. New Prime, Inc., 196 F.R.D. 43, 45 n.2 (W.D. Va. 2000)
("[t]he work product doctrine is not a 'privilege,' but a sort of 'qualified immunity' from discovery"; finding that a surveillance tape of a personal injury plaintiff amounted to work product but that plaintiff had established sufficient "substantial need" to justify compelling the defendant to produce the videotape)
Case Name: Gutshall v. New Prime, Inc., 196 F.R.D. 43, 45, 46 (W.D. Va. 2000)
(noting that "[t]he Fourth Circuit has not addressed the issue of the discoverability of surveillance evidence in a civil case"; finding that the tape "falls within the broad scope of Rule 26(b)(1)" even though the defendant in a personal injury case only intended to use the surveillance videotape for impeachment purposes; concluding that the surveillance tape was work product but indicating that "a plaintiff alleging claims for personal injury has a substantial need for surveillance evidence in preparing his case for trial, due to the relevance and importance of such evidence, and the substantial impact it may have at trial. Further, it is impossible to procure the substantial equivalent of such evidence without undue hardship, as videotape 'fixes information available at a particular time and a particular place under particular circumstances, and therefore cannot be duplicated,'" (quoting Smith v. Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc., 168 F.R.D. 582, 586 (S.D. Tex. 1996)); requiring that the defendant produce the surveillance videotape without explaining whether it should be produced before or after the plaintiff's deposition)
Case Name: Runions v. Norfolk & W. Ry., 51 Va. Cir. 341, 344 (Va. Cir. Ct. 2000)
("The court will therefore order that (1) the contents of surveillance movies, tape, and photographs must be disclosed if the materials will be used as evidence either substantively or for impeachment; and (2) the plaintiff and his attorneys must be afforded a reasonable opportunity, consistent with the needs expressed by the Court in Dodson, to observe these movies or photographs before their presentation as evidence. Within its discretion, however, the court will further order that the defendant has the right to depose the plaintiff before producing the contents of the surveillance information for inspection. Counsel will forthwith arrange for the plaintiff's deposition to be taken. As soon as Mr. Runions has signed the deposition transcript, or, if he waives signature, as soon as his deposition is concluded, NW's lawyers will produce the surveillance materials.")
Case Name: Gutshall v. New Prime, Inc., 196 F.R.D. 43, 46 (W.D. Va. 2000)
("The court agrees with the majority of courts that considered the issue, and finds that a plaintiff alleging claims for personal injury has a substantial need for surveillance evidence in preparing his case for trial, due to the relevance and importance of such evidence, and the substantial impact it may have at trial. Further, it is impossible to procure the substantial equivalent of such evidence without undue hardship, as videotape 'fixes information available at a particular time and a particular place under particular circumstances, and therefore cannot be duplicated.' Smith [v. Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc.], 168 F.R.D. [582,] 586 [(S.D. Tex. 1996)] (citation omitted). Notwithstanding the work product status of the surveillance evidence, it therefore must be produced by New Prime pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e)(2). The plaintiff's motion to compel shall be granted.")
(assessing a personal injury plaintiff's attempt to discover a surveillance videotape taken by defendant; ordering that the surveillance tape "must be disclosed if the materials will be used as evidence either substantively or for impeachment"; relying on its discretion to "further order that the defendant has the right to depose the plaintiff before producing the contents of the surveillance information for inspection")
Case Name: Larson v. McGuire, 42 Va. Cir. 40, 42 (Va. Cir. Ct. 1997)
(ordering the defendant to produce a videotape of herself if she intended to use the tape at trial)
Case Name: Larson v. McGuire, 42 Va. Cir. 40, 42, 44-45, 46 (Va. Cir. Ct. 1997)
(addressing work product protection for a surveillance videotape of plaintiff taken by defendant after an accident; "After litigation had commenced, the defendant caused a video to be taken of the plaintiff for possible use at trial. This video is unquestionably work product prepared in connection with the instant action. Defendant has agreed to make the video available for review by the plaintiff in the event she elects to make use of it at trial."; "[S]he has shown the videotape to have been prepared for possible use at the trial of the case. Counsel for the defendant has represented that he will make the tape available prior to trial in the event he elects to make use of it. Fairness would dictate that the videotape material be made available to the plaintiff in sufficient time for the plaintiff to take additional discovery as to its contents."; "Defendant need only produce the video in the event it is to be used at the trial of the case for any purpose. Plaintiff fails to demonstrate a substantial need unless it were to be so utilized. As counsel for Ms. McGuire has represented [that] they will make such video available should they elect to use it at trial, no further direction from the Court is necessary except to require production in sufficient time that plaintiff may engage in discovery with respect to the video.")
Case Name: Smith v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., 22 Va. Cir. 348, 356 (Va. Cir. Ct. 1991)
(addressing work product protection for a surveillance videotape of a plaintiff prepared by a defendant railroad; concluding that the surveillance videotape deserved work product protection, which the plaintiff could not overcome; "If the diligence and industry of NRPC has revealed, through surveillance, evidence of exaggeration or outright lying on the part of Smith, this court will not strip it of the advantage gained without a showing which will meet the requirements of the rule to overcome the protected status of the material. This court finds that any facts learned by the surveillance is [sic] within the plaintiff's knowledge[;] he has the substantial equivalent of anything that has been learned by the defendant and has it without undue hardship. The rule does not require that he have it in the same form as does his adversary.")
Case Name: Lee v. R.F. & P. R.R., 23 Va. Cir. 357 (Va. Cir. Ct. 1991)
(holding that a surveillance videotape must be produced if it is to be used at trial, but allowing defendant to depose plaintiff before producing the videotape)
Case Name: Moore v. CSX Transp., Inc., 22 Va. Cir. 97, 98 (Va. Cir. Ct. 1990)
(holding a surveillance film to be discoverable; "Because the parties do not question that the film was made for use at trial to impeach plaintiff and thereby provide a prophylactic effect against any possible perjury, the question is whether plaintiff cannot gather the substantial equivalent by other means. Certainly, no one knows plaintiff's activities and lifestyle better than plaintiff himself. When given the day and time of the surveillance, plaintiff would be caused to remember the occasion and would thereby have available through his own recollection the substantial equivalent of what defendant has captured on film. While remembering the occasion in this way would perhaps give plaintiff the equivalent, the film itself may fill in detail and give plaintiff a source for offering explanation that memory alone may not give. There is no way to film plaintiff's past activities because the same things defendant has recorded can no longer be filmed. I do not believe plaintiff can get a substantial equivalent of the tape without seeing the past recorded activities depicted on the tape itself."); not explaining whether the defendant could depose the plaintiff before disclosing the videotape)
Case Name: McIntyre v. CSX Transp., Inc., 22 Va. Cir. 302 (Va. Cir. Ct. 1990)
(holding that a surveillance videotape was discoverable, but allowing defendant to depose plaintiff before notifying plaintiff of the videotape's existence or producing it)
Case Name: Berens v. Berens, No. COA15-1136, 2016 N.C. App. 836 (N.C. App. Aug. 16, 2016)
(finding that a mother's videotapes of the father's visitation with their children deserved work product protection, but that the father could overcome the work product protection; "Here, there is no dispute that the custody exchange videos are work product -- the videos are tangible things prepared in anticipation of litigation or trial and were secured by a private investigator -- an agent -- of defendant-mother's attorney. . . . The question at issue is whether plaintiff-father has a substantial need for the custody exchange videos and if so, whether there is no other way for him to obtain a substantial equivalent without undue hardship."; "Defendant-mother . . . argues that, even assuming plaintiff-father has established a substantial need for the videos, he has failed to establish an undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent. Defendant-mother argues that, with today's technology, plaintiff-father could have simply pulled out a phone to record the same exchanges recorded by the videos. However, the test for undue hardship is not whether a party 'could have done all the same things,' or could have obtained the same information at some point in the past, but whether the party is able 'without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means.' N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 26(b)(3). Defendant-mother's argument fails where she attempts to claim that it is no undue hardship for plaintiff-father to travel back in time and create his own video recordings of events which have already taken place.")
Case Name: Graves v. Southland Corp., No. 4:99CV00036 (E.D. Va. July 14, 1999)
(finding that statements taken by a company's risk management service after an incident were protected by the work product doctrine; further holding that the plaintiff's lawyer had not established that plaintiff could not obtain the substantial equivalent information without undue burden; "Dunn and Nottingham [company employees] are susceptible to being deposed, though neither has been deposed since September 13, 1993, a period of almost six years. Thus, information readily available to plaintiff has not been pursued by plaintiff in a timely fashion.")
Case Name: Taylor v. McCallister, 40 Va. Cir. 327, 327-28 (Va. Cir. Ct. 1996)
(in a civil case arising from a traffic accident, ordering the plaintiff to make a transcript of the traffic court proceedings the plaintiff had ordered prepared available to defendant (in return for payment of duplications costs) because "defendant also has a substantial need for the material in preparation of the case," although agreeing with the plaintiff that the defendant could also have arranged to have a transcript prepared)
(finding that the work product doctrine did not protect surveillance videotape relied upon by a doctor in preparing an independent medical examination; ordering the surveillance videotape produced before trial, but allowing defendant to depose the plaintiff first; "Although Plaintiff has been made aware of categories of activities that Plaintiff performs in Defendant's video, the Court finds that Defendant's video is unique and depicts Plaintiff doing something at a time in the past that will never reoccur. Even if Plaintiff were to be videotaped conducting the same activities, it would not be the substantial equivalent. The Court also finds that the purposes of the Rules of the Virginia Supreme Court for discovery to prevent surprise and promote an orderly and expeditious trial will be advanced by disclosure of the video by Defendant to Plaintiff in advance of trial.")
Case Name: In re Naranjo v. Page, No. 13-1382, No. 13-2018, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 18293, at*24 n.16 (4th Cir. Sept. 24, 2014)
("We recognize that the work product doctrine is not a privilege but rather 'a qualified immunity protecting from discovery documents and tangible things prepared by a party or his representative in anticipation of litigation.'")
("Work-product immunity is conditional.")
Case Name: Dudley v. Cash, 82 Va. Cir. 1, 17 (Va. Cir. Ct. 2010)
("[M]atters sought to be discovered fall into three categories. Some are clearly discoverable, some are privileged (and are not discoverable), and some are work product (and are conditionally discoverable).")
Case Name: Campbell v. Dastoor, 79 Va. Cir. 569, 570, 573 (Va. Cir. Ct. 2009)
(analyzing the privilege and work product implications of a doctor sued for medical malpractice moving to another employer (PCA), which was the named insured patient in the medical malpractice insurance policy; explaining that the new employer's president and CEO attended the defendant doctor's deposition and mediation, and "has been involved in face-to-face and telephone conversations with counsel for Defendant and with the claim specialist for Hudson [medical malpractice insurance carrier]. Dr. Polverino [CEO] also received electronic mail from defense counsel, Hudson, and Defendant." (footnotes omitted); "The work product doctrine 'does not offer absolute immunity, and discovery will be permitted where a showing of necessity greater than the normal requirement for good cause is made.'" (footnote omitted))
(analyzing the waiver impact of an insured seeking recovery of attorneys fees he spent in an earlier litigation; approving the insured's privilege log; "But the 'substantial need' exception has no applicability where the attorney work-product privilege has already been waived. Put differently, waiver is a threshold question. The 'substantial need' inquiry provides an escape hatch for a party seeking discovery of otherwise-protected attorney work product. But if the work-product protection has been waived, the moving party is entitled to discovery of such work product, even without showing substantial need.")
Case Name: SEC v. Cuban, Civ. A. No. 3:08-CV-2050-D, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37167, at *9 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 15, 2013)
(concluding that Mark Cuban could not overcome the SEC's work product protection for interview notes prepared one year before testimony that was available to Cuban; "Substantial need and undue hardship are related inquiries because it is necessary to define the information for which a party has a substantial need in order to determine whether substantially equivalent information can be obtained without undue hardship.")
(holding that plaintiff could overcome Ford's work product protection for post-accident pictures; "This privilege log claims the work product privilege for photographs taken of vehicles following accidents. . . . Plaintiffs contend these cases involve similar accidents in that the airbags are alleged not to have deployed after moderate to severe frontal impacts and that the photographic evidence of the condition of the fuse and other parts of the vehicles are essential to their claim. Ford asserts the work product privilege for photographs taken in the Bryant, Dunwoody and Hood cases as well as for the initial draft of an expert report . . . . As discussed above, plaintiffs have established a substantial need for OSI material and have offered evidence that counsel for plaintiffs has attempted to obtain the photographs from other sources and was not able to do so because of the age of the cases.")
Case Name: Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case No. 17-cv-00939-WHA-(JSC), 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98604 (N.D. Cal. June 26, 2017)
(holding that plaintiff had a substantial need for work product because the CEO of Ottomotto pleaded the Fifth Amendment; "[I]n light of Levandowski's refusal to answer questions or produce documents on the basis of his Fifth Amendment privilege, Waymo has demonstrated a substantial need for fact work product reciting Levandowski's statements or attaching documents/materials found on Levandowski's devices or that Levandowski otherwise provided Stroz.")
("The court agrees that broad unsubstantiated assertions of unavailability or faulty memory are insufficient to arise to a substantial need. However, in this case, the Plaintiffs have sought production of documents to refresh the recollection of witnesses who are no longer employed in their relevant positions with ACE. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that these witnesses may be unable to remember facts relevant to the Plaintiffs' deposition. Further, the Plaintiffs have indicated that the depositions will take place in Canada, To promote efficiency, and prevent repeated depositions, the court finds that the Plaintiffs have presented more than a mere unsubstantiated assertion of faulty memory. Thus, the Plaintiffs have a substantial need for said documents.")
("State Street has not established any substantial need for the chronology. . . . And authorities cited (ordinary 'fact' work product may be ordered produced if there is a substantial need for the materials). Since State Street is free to depose Mr. Szulik, it can obtain the factual information contained in the document from him.")
(applying the work product protection to a defendant employee's selection of documents; "Plaintiffs have received all of the underlying data used to generate the subject documents, via Simulink and source code as well as financial disclosures, which would enable Plaintiffs to generate, for themselves, the substantial equivalent of these documents.")
Case Name: Kephart v. ABB, Inc., Civ. A. No. 2:12-668, 2014 U.S. Dist. 51411 (W.D. Pa. April 14, 2014)
(holding the plaintiff injured in a boiler explosion could seek access to documents about the defendant's investigation, because the plaintiff could overcome the defendant's work product protection; "[E]ven if Defendant had established that the drawings were work product created in anticipation of litigation, Plaintiffs have demonstrated the substantial need for access to these drawings given the fact that they did not have the opportunity to conduct an independent investigation of the boiler system and the explosion site.")
Case Name: Hooke v. Foss Maritime Co., Case No. 13-cv-00994-JCS, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50741 (N.D. Cal. April 10, 2014)
(analyzing work product protection for documents created after separate work-related injuries; "Plaintiff demonstrates a substantial need for the material in light of the fact that witnesses do not recall any details of the incident or the contents of the EIS Report Witness Statements, nor did they review their statements before being deposed.")
Case Name: Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. v. Saco,No. CV 2012-5633 (NGG) (MDG), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142916, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 2, 2013)
(selecting a "trigger date" for documents traded by an insurance company in a third-party bad faith claim context; "Courts in this Circuit have found that 'substantial need' and 'undue hardship' do not exist where the information sought can be obtained through depositions or other discovery methods.")
Case Name: U.S. Ethernet Innovations LLC v. Acer, Inc., No. C 10-03724 CW (LB), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142896, at *22-23 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2013)
(analyzing work product protection for documents created by a former HP consultant, now working with K&L Gates as a consultant; finding that the work product doctrine protected the consultant's documents; "That being said, a fact witness's view about relevant documents is closer to fact information than work product. A related issue is that even with work-product culled documents, 'substantial need' can justify disclosure of the culled documents. Part of the reason that there might not be a substantial need is that USEI is free under the district court's August 16 order to talk with Mr. Baker [Consultant] about what is important in the litigation regarding the enforcement of the patents, including his assessment of the important documents. This does not mean that USEI can ask what HP thinks is important or what Mr. Baker said to HP, but it can ask what Mr. Baker thinks is important. (HP agreed with this point at the hearing.) USEI's interests are protected by the district judge's order allowing it access to Mr. Baker and preventing HP from preventing access or requiring access only through HP and its counsel.")
Case Name: Laws v. Stevens Transp., Inc., Case No. 2:12-cv-544, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22159, at *9-10 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 19, 2013)
(holding that the work product doctrine protected photographs of an accident scene taken the day of an accident, and that plaintiff could not overcome the protection; "[I]n Fletcher v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 194 F.R.D. 666, 671 (S.D. Ca. 2000), the court, quoting 6 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice §26.70[5][c], at 26-221 to 26-222 (3d Ed. 1999), held that '[t]he substantial need prong examines: (1) whether the information is an essential element in the requesting party's case and (2) whether the party requesting discovery can obtain the facts from an alternate source,' and observed that 'a party's desire to find corroborating evidence is insufficient to establish substantial need.' Using this type of standard, courts have denied a request to produce information protected by the work product doctrine if the requesting party 'has not demonstrated that the information is integral to the preparation of its case.'" (citation omitted))
(quoting successful affidavits supporting plaintiff's lawyer's contention that it needed the assistance of plaintiff's long-time FDA consultant in providing legal advice to plaintiff; "ChemWerth argues that it has a substantial need to obtain the challenged documents because 'they are vital to ChemWerth's claims and defenses in this action, in which ChemWerth alleges that Bryan Corp. and/or Waldman [plaintiff's FDA consultant], alone or in collusion, planned an illegal scheme to blame ChemWerth for Bryan Corp. and/or Waldman's failure to develop a FDA-approvable TS product.'. . . However, ChemWerth has not explained why it could not obtain this information through depositions of fact witnesses.")
Case Name: In re McDowell, 483 B.R. 472, 496 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2012)
("With this alternative available to the UST [United States Trustee] -- the UST can depose the Debtors -- there is not a substantial need at present for the requested documents.")
(finding that plaintiff could not overcome defendant's work product protection; "Third, MWV does not have a substantial need for the materials at issue because it will have a substantial equivalent of the information that it seeks. MWV will have an opportunity to cross examine Doctor Ortega regarding the adequacy of the crystallinity testing methods employed. This opportunity severely limits MWV's need for testing information that was provided by UMinn and Bruker, especially because these two witness groups will not be testifying in this case. Therefore, MWV has not shown that it lacks a substantial equivalent to the materials at issue because UMinn and Bruker will not testify and Plaintiff will have an opportunity to cross examine Defendant's expert witness.")
Case Name: E.I. DuPont De Nemours and Co. v. Kolon Indus., Inc., 269 F.R.D. 600, 608-609 (E.D. Va. 2010)
("Factors to consider in determining the existence of substantial need include '(1) importance of the materials to the party seeking them for case preparation; (2) the difficulty the party will have obtaining them by other means; and (3) the likelihood that the party, even if he obtains the information by independent means, will not have the substantial equivalent of the documents he seeks.' Sanford, at *9 [Sanford v. Virginia, No. 3:08cv835, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83979, at *6-7 (E.D. Va. Sept. 14, 2009)] (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, advisory committee's note, 1970 Amendments)
Case Name: Sanford v. Virginia, Civ. A. No. 3:08cv835, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83979, at *7-8 (E.D. Va. Sept. 14, 2009)
("A recent decision by a District Court within the Fourth Circuit, Tustin v. Motorists Mutual Insurance Co., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4853, *13-14 (N.D. W. Va. Jan. 23, 2009), described the seeking party's burden as follows: 'In showing a substantial need, the movant must specifically articulate the necessity for the documents or other tangible things. The movant must also demonstrate why or how alternative sources for obtaining the substantial equivalent are unavailable.' Tustin quoted a Sixth Circuit decision, In re Grand Jury Subpoena Dated Nov. 8, 1979, 622 F.2d 933, 935 (6th Cir. 1980), which noted that '[w]hen a party does not make any showing that other witnesses were unknown to it or unavailable to testify, it is merely "on a general fishing expedition" into the attorney's files to satisfy itself that nothing has been overlooked. The work-product protection forbids such excursions.'" (citations omitted))
Case Name: Maki v. United States, Civ. A. No. 7:07cv443, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31496, at *17-18 (W.D. Va. Apr. 15, 2008)
(finding that a plaintiff suing the VA had not established sufficient grounds to overcome the government's work product protection; "At oral argument, plaintiff suggested that substantial need may be met here due to the passage of time and the need to get factual information concerning this incident obtained closer to the date of the incident. On balance, and given the fact that the court is ordering production of the VA OIG report and its attachments which contain timely factual information about this incident, it does not appear that plaintiff can meet its burden of showing substantial need for the peer review reports. As such, given the production of the VA OIG reports, the peer review materials need not be produced.")
Case Name: Hawkins v. Norfolk S. Ry., 71 Va. Cir. 285, 290 (Va. Cir. Ct. 2006)
(assessing a work product claim for materials prepared by an insurance adjuster for a plaintiff involved in a vehicle-train accident; "'The substantial need prong examines (1) whether the information is an essential element in the requesting party's case and (2) whether the party requesting discovery can obtain the facts from an alternate source.' Fletcher v. Union Pacific RR., 194 F.R.D. 666, 671 (S.D. Cal. 2000) (quoting 6 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice, § 26.70[5][C], at 26-221 to 26-222 (3d ed. 1999)).")
Case Name: Massenburg v. Hawkins, 70 Va. Cir. 13, 16 (Va. Cir. Ct. 2005)
(in a third-party insurance context, finding that the work product doctrine did not protect a statement defendant gave to her insurance company after an auto accident; also finding that plaintiff had substantial need for the statement because defendant's memory was not clear; "In proceeding, and in her deposition, Hawkins made statements suggesting that she regrets her inability to remember details about the accident. The fact that Hawkins' memory is at issue and that Hawkins' contemporaneous statements regarding the accident are not available to both parties leads the Court to conclude that Massenburg has shown substantial need for the documents.")
(finding that the work product protection covered materials collected by the defendant's insurance company in anticipation of litigation; quoting another court in explaining that "'the substantial need prong examines: 1) whether the information is an essential element in the requesting party's case, and 2) whether the party requesting discovery can obtain the facts from an alternate source.'" (citation omitted); finding that a loss activity report about plaintiff's driving record collected by the defendant's insurance company is not important for plaintiff's case, and could be collected by plaintiff without undue hardship)
Case Name: Lopez v. Woolever, 62 Va. Cir. 198, 205-206 (Va. Cir. Ct. 2003)
(concluding that during the defendant's insurance carrier's investigation deserved work product protection, which could not be overcome; "The burden of overcoming work product protection, by proving substantial need and undue hardship is on the party seeking the materials. State Farm v. Perrigan, 102 F.R.D. 235, 237 (W.D. Va. 1984) (relying upon Virginia Electric & Power Co. v. Sun Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., 68 F.R.D. 397, 410 (E.D. Va.1975)); Covington, 40 Va. Cir. at 493. The substantial need prong examines: 1) whether the information is an essential element in the requesting party's case, and 2) whether the party requesting discovery can obtain the facts from an alternate source.' Fletcher v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 194 F.R.D. 666, 671 (S.D. Cal. 2000) (quoting 6 JAMES WM. MOORE ET AL., MOORE'S FEDERAL PRACTICE § 26.70[5][C], at 26-221 to 26-222 (3d ed. 1999)). See also Nat'l Union Fire Ins. v. Murray Sheet Metal, 967 F.2d 980, 984-985 (4th Cir. 1992)")
(concluding that during the defendant's insurance carrier's investigation deserved work product protection, which could not be overcome; "In the case at hand, Plaintiff does not argue that the production of the loss activity report on him, obtained by Defendant's insurer, will aid him in establishing an essential element of his case. Indeed, there appears to be no relation between the loss activity report on Plaintiff and establishing any element of Plaintiff's claim. Further, this court assumes without deciding that access to such information is as available to Plaintiff as it is to Defendant, thus rendering the issue of undue hardship to Plaintiff moot.")
(finding that work product protection covered materials collected by defendant's insurance company in anticipation of litigation; quoting another court in explaining that "`the substantial need prong examines: 1) whether the information is an essential element in the requesting party's case, and 2) whether the party requesting discovery can obtain the facts from an alternate source.'" (citation omitted); finding that a loss activity report about plaintiff's driving record collected by the defendant's insurance company is not important for plaintiff's case and could be collected by plaintiff without undue hardship)
("[A]s with all of the other discovery MANCON has propounded, the information sought therein may enlighten any number of issues before the Court concerning the Motion to Lift Protective Order and the Sanctions Motion. In addition, the Vander Schaaf Report is, on its face, apparently the only complete source of the information contained in the Disclosure regarding Vander Schaaf's findings. (footnote omitted) Thus, MANCON has a demonstrated substantial need for the Vander Schaaf Report, and that it would be an undue hardship for MANCON to obtain the report's contents elsewhere. Therefore, MANCON is entitled to discovery of the report's nonopinion elements, though the other parts of the report would be considered opinion work product and would ordinarily be privileged.")
Case Name: Harris v. Skyhook Corp., 8 Va. Cir. 307, 309, 310 (Richmond 1987)
(finding that the party seeking materials had not proven need although two years had passed since the interviews it unsuccessfully sought).")
(holding that a non-party witnesses affidavit deserved fact rather than opinion work product protection; "[T]his court declines to compel disclosure of the non-party witness affidavits at this time, since Plaintiff failed to meet her burden of showing the she is unable, without undue hardship, to obtain the substantial equivalent of the affidavits by other means. Defendants provided Plaintiff with the last known addresses and phone numbers of multiple former employee non-party witnesses. Plaintiff concedes that she has information to believe that at least one non-party witness lives out of the state but Plaintiff failed to secure an open commission to take the deposition of this witness. Plaintiff also failed to show her due diligence of securing any witness for a deposition as Plaintiff has not served any non-party witness with a deposition subpoena. Furthermore, Plaintiff failed to support her conclusory argument that the non-party witnesses are unresponsive as Plaintiff failed to include any supporting documentation, such as a call log, returned letters, postal search, or affidavit from a private investigator detailing his or her due diligence to search for the witnesses. As such, the court grants Defendants' motion for a protective order. Nevertheless, to avoid additional motion practice, Defendants, at their discretion, may produce the non-party affidavits subject to redactions of any privileged or confidential information.")
Case Name: In re Aggrenox Antitrust Litig., No. 3:14-md-02516, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22860 (D. Conn. Feb. 12, 2018)
(rejecting a motion to certify an appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291; "I relied upon district court decisions from this circuit that held '[a] substantial need exists 'where the information sought is 'essential' to the party's defense, is 'crucial' to the determination of whether the defendant could be held liable for the acts alleged, or carries great probative value on contested issues.'")
(finding that plaintiff's affidavit about asbestos exposure deserved work product protection, and holding after an in camera review of the withheld documents that the defendant could not overcome the work product doctrine on the grounds that the affidavit might provide impeachment material; "Although Defendant claims substantial need based on the potential for impeachment evidence, the Court can reassure Defendant that the exposure affidavits and the answer to interrogatory number six are nearly identical, and thus there is no impeachment evidence to be found.")
("The 'compelling need' standard 'usually equates to an inability to prove his case if the material is not made available.'")
(analyzing protection for documents created in connection with the BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill; protecting as work product documents created by an expert who assisted in educating BP lawyers; "Wisner [land owner] has produced nothing to rebut BP's evidence that the data underlying the Fitzgerald [Expert] Reports is both Unified Command data generated during the oil spill response and publicly available data; that no field work or additional data gathering was conducted to generate the reports; and that BP has provided Wisner with all of the non-public data underlying these reports pursuant to the Access Agreement and in discovery. Accordingly, Wisner has neither shown a substantial need for the underlying data nor that it cannot obtain the substantial equivalent of the publicly available data from other sources. Wisner has not demonstrated a substantial need for Dr. Fitzgerald's analysis, when it can engage its own experts to evaluate the data to which it has access.")
Case Name: Pemberton v. Republic Services, Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-01421 AGF, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81063 (E.D. Mo. June 23, 2015)
("What 'substantial need' is depends on the facts and circumstances of the individual case, but it is certainly more than mere tangential relevance to the case. There can be no substantial need for documents or other materials that do not bear on a material fact at issue in the underlying case."; "Here, Plaintiffs do not argue that they have demonstrated the requisite substantial need. In fact, and as accurately pointed out by Defendants, Plaintiffs' memoranda in response to Defendants' motion are entirely silent on the point.")
(analyzing work product protection for documents created in connection with the companies' litigation settlement that resulted in a "co-promotion agreement"; finding that the work product protection is a business arrangement that was part of a settlement, in remanding to the trial court to review post-settlement documents; analyzing the burden an adversary must overcome to prove "substantial need sufficient to overcome a litigant's work product protection"; "These cases indicate that a moving party's burden is generally met if it demonstrates that the materials are relevant to the case, the materials have a unique value apart from those already in the movant's possession, and 'special circumstances' excuse the movant's failure to obtain the requested materials itself."; "Although each of these cases mentioned the relevance of the requested documents, none articulated a requirement that the documents be essential to the claim or probative of a critical element."; "A moving party need not show, however, that the requested documents are critical to, or dispositive of, the issues to be litigated.")
(holding that post-accident witness statements deserved fact but not opinion work product protection, which the plaintiff could overcome; "The Underwoods are key witnesses to the accident and the events leading up to it. Accurate recordings of their recollections are of paramount importance to Galloway's ability to prepare his case. . . . While Galloway can secure the Underwoods' sworn statements at this time through depositions, he will receive their recollections only through the imperfect window of two intervening years. A deposition based on two-year-old memories is not the substantial equivalent of a witness statement taken a week after the incident, especially when Galloway was physically incapable of initiating his own contemporaneous investigations due to his injuries.")
In FTC v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 778 F.3d 142 (D.C. Cir. 2015), the D.C. Circuit held that: (1) work product "prepared. . . for one lawsuit will retain its protected status even in subsequent, unrelated litigation" (id. at 149); (2) the work product doctrine could protect documents memorializing a business arrangement included as part of adverse companies' litigation settlement agreement, even if the arrangement "has some independent economic value to both parties" — if it was "nonetheless crafted for the purpose of settling litigation" (id. at 150); and (3) an adversary can satisfy the "substantial need" element for overcoming a litigant's work product by demonstrating that the withheld materials "are relevant to the case" and "have a unique value apart from those already in the [adversary's] possession" — without showing "that the requested documents are critical to, or dispositive of, the issues to be litigated." (Id. at 155-56.) The first two holdings represent a broad view of the work product protection, but the third holding makes it easier for adversaries to overcome a company's work product protection.
Case Name: Pinkney v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., Civil Action No.: CV214-075, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129604, at *6 (S.D. Ga. Sept. 15, 2014)
("Defendant nonetheless produced to Plaintiff a redacted copy of the incident report, and, to the extent that Plaintiff's Motion seeks an unredacted version, Plaintiff has not shown substantial need and undue hardship with regard to the redacted portions. Given that Plaintiff has the factual portions of the incident report, Plaintiff can adequately prepare her case; Plaintiff does not have a substantial need for the manager's mental impressions and conclusions in order to do so.")
Case Name: Chevron Corp. v. Donziger, No. 11 Civ. 0691 (LAK), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92089, at *10, *10-11 (S.D.N.Y. June 28, 2013)
(analyzing work product protection for materials created by a private investigator and communications with a public relations firm; "Absent any impeachment value, there is no substantial need for the evidence and no undue hardship in their absence."; "Guerra [former Ecuadorian judge who presided over the Ecuadorian lawsuit against Chevron's predecessor] will be a very important witness in this case. If his story is substantially accurate, it necessarily follows that the Ecuadorian judgment is the product of a corrupt bargain. In such circumstances, the Court will not ignore the possibility that sufficient surveillance took place to satisfy the LAP Representatives' [two of 47 Ecuadorian individuals who, with others, obtained a $19 billion judgment against Chevron in Ecuador] burden. It therefore will conduct an in camera inspection of documents sufficient to show the dates and hours, if any, during which Chevron, its attorneys, or any contractors employed by Chevron or its attorneys, had any of Messrs. Zambrano [Equadorian judge], Fajardo [lawyer for Equadorian LAPs], Donziger, Yanza [Equadorian lawyer], and Guerra under physical surveillance in Ecuador during each of the two periods referred to above (i.e., October 1, 2009 through March 12, 2010 and October 1, 2010 through February 14, 2011) and the general locations at which any such instances occurred. Upon review of those materials, which are to be submitted under seal on or before July 12, 2013, the Court will determine whether and to what extent movants have a substantial need for this category of 'ordinary' work product absent which they would suffer undue hardship.")
Case Name: Laws v. Stevens Transport, Inc., Case No. 2:12-cv-544, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22159 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 19, 2013)
"Unlike the Attorney-Client Privilege, Work Product Doctrine Protection Can Be Overcome"
Unlike the absolute attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine provides only qualified protection to non-opinion work product. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(A)(ii) indicates that an adversary can overcome the protection if it "shows that it has substantial need for the materials to prepare its case and cannot, without undue hardship, obtain their substantial equivalent by other means."
In Smith v. Coulombe, Case No. 2:11-cv-531-SU, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14783 (D. Or. Feb. 4, 2013), the court found that plaintiffs could overcome the defendants' work product claim for materials generated during an investigation. The court held that the withheld documents "contain potentially critical evidence or information that could lead to critical evidence" – supporting the "substantial need" element. Id. At *17. A couple of weeks later, a court held that plaintiffs involved in an automobile accident could not overcome the work product protection for photographs taken by the trucking company's investigator. Laws v. Stevens Transport, Inc., Case No. 2:12-cv-544, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22159 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 19, 2013). The court concluded that plaintiffs "have not argued that without the pictures, they are unable to present a case of either liability or damages." Id. At *10. Although the photographs were undeniably "helpful to their case, . . . They have not shown that they are 'essential' or 'integral.'" Id. The court also questioned whether plaintiff could not obtain substantially equivalent evidence elsewhere. The court explained that "plaintiffs can still take pictures of the accident location," and also noted that "there is no allegation or proof that [plaintiff] has no recollection, or only a vague one, of the accident." Id. At *11-12.
Because the attorney-client privilege provides absolute protection, courts analyzing that doctrine never engage in analyses like these.
Case Name: Smith v. Coulombe, Case No. 2:11-cv-531-SU, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14783 (D. Or. Feb. 4, 2013)
(analyzing privilege and work product issues related to documents created by and communications with Ernst & Young ("E&Y") and Wilmer Hale during their internal investigation into defendant Household's alleged customer overcharges; concluding that: (1) E&Y's documents deserve privilege protection because it assisted Household's general counsel in providing legal advice, but that the Garner doctrine allowed access by the securities fraud plaintiff class shareholders; and deserved fact work product protection, but that plaintiffs could overcome that protection; (2) Wilmer Hale's documents deserved privilege protection because the firm represented Household although it was retained by an Audit Committee; and also deserved work product protection which plaintiffs could not overcome, and (3) Wilmer Hale did not waive the work product protection by disclosing facts, by disclosing its work product to Household's auditor KPMG, or by disclosing its work product to the SEC under a confidentiality agreement; explaining the court's conclusion that the plaintiffs cannot overcome the work product protection covering WilmerHales' documents; "Plaintiffs claim that they should receive the requested information in any event because they have a substantial need for the materials and will not be able to obtain their substantial equivalent without undue hardship. . . . To the extent Defendants do not intend to introduce the Restructuring Report at trial, however, Plaintiffs have no substantial need for the information for cross-examination purposes."; "Nor have Plaintiffs demonstrated that they cannot obtain the equivalent information without undue hardship. Plaintiffs insist that they cannot recreate the WilmerHale investigation because they are only allowed to take 55 depositions and, thus, cannot depose all of the individuals WilmerHale interviewed. . . . Plaintiffs also lament that witnesses may have forgotten crucial facts and Household may have deleted relevant email messages. . . . Plaintiffs fail to explain, nor does the court see, why they need to depose every WilmerHale interviewee in order to test the law firm's conclusions, especially where Defendants do not intend to make those conclusions part of their defense. . . . Moreover, Plaintiffs have deposed, or have scheduled depositions of nine current or former HMS employees who can testify about the Markell allegations and the conclusions stated in the Restructuring Report. Notably, Plaintiffs have the underlying data KPMG [Household's regular auditor] used to test the accuracy of the Restructuring Report, and the Report itself. Under these circumstances, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated undue hardship for purposes of overcoming the work product privilege.")
(assessing a work product claim for materials prepared by an insurance adjuster for a plaintiff involved in a vehicle-train accident; "It is true that the adjuster's log is a unique item and contains information which would be difficult for Defendant to otherwise discover; however, Defendant has not demonstrated that it needs the information in the adjuster's log to complete its defense, that the information would be crucial to their case, or that it is especially relevant to their defense. While it might be attenuated for Liberty to claim that Norfolk Southern is trying to gain future advantage in litigation, the Courts are charged with protecting 'mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of an attorney or other representative of a party concerning the litigation.' Va. Sup. Ct. R. 4:1(b)(3). It appears that Norfolk Southern has not demonstrated anything other than mere curiosity as to what is contained in the adjuster's log; therefore, it has not met its burden of demonstrating substantial need."; ultimately finding that the work product doctrine protected the adjuster's log)
Case Name: Ring v. Mikrin, Inc., 40 Va. Cir. 528, 535, 535-36 (Va. Cir. Ct. 1996)
(analyzing work product protection in a third party insurance context; explaining that plaintiff who claimed to have injured in a fall at the defendant restaurant sought production of various materials prepared after the accident; ultimately concluding that the work product protection covered the material, and that the plaintiff could overcome the protection only for post-accident photographs; rejecting a "bright line" test in favor of a fact-intensive analysis; ultimately finding that the materials deserve work product protection; also concluding that the plaintiff could overcome the work product protection for some but not all of the materials; "The court finds plaintiff has not made a strong showing of substantial need as to the witness interviews and diagrams of the restaurant. The plaintiff has access to the witnesses the insurance company interviewed and may question those witnesses under oath with penalty of perjury."; "As to the photographs, plaintiff has demonstrated substantial need considering the factors articulated in Suggs [Suggs v. Whitaker, 152 F.R.D. 501 (M.D.N.C. 1993)]. The photographs were taken soon after the accident occurred and would therefore seem relevant and important to the case. Second, the plaintiff would face great difficulty, if not impossibility, in obtaining photographs from any other source. Because the plaintiff cannot recreate the accident scene and the photographs were taken close in time to the accident, the court finds the plaintiff has demonstrated a substantial need for the photographs.")
1996-01-01 State VA B 12/09
Case Name: Nadeau v. Wealth Counsel LLC, No. 2:17-cv-00561-MCE-AC, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100125 (E.D. Cal. June 14, 2018)
(holding that an employment discrimination investigation was not primarily motivated by legal concerns; "Even if the interview notes were prepared because of litigation, however, disclosure would be appropriate here because plaintiffs have made a persuasive showing of substantial need and inability to otherwise obtain the information. . . . The same is true of the other non-privileged documents identified in the privilege log, assuming arguendo that they satisfy the Rule 26(b)(3) definition of work product. Here the court incorporates by reference its previous discussion of relevance. In sum, Ryan's investigation lies at the heart of plaintiffs' case, which alleges retaliation for statements made during plaintiffs' interviews with Ryan. The factual centrality and probative value of the information easily meets the Upjohn substantial need standard."; "It is equally apparent that the information is not otherwise available to plaintiffs. While the individual plaintiffs were present at their own interviews, they have no other way of knowing what Ryan wrote down or otherwise documented about their statements, how that information was evaluated in light of the investigation as a whole, how it was conveyed to individuals responsible for subsequent adverse employment actions, and the extent to which it was discussed or considered."; "For these reasons, any protection otherwise available under Rule 26(b)(3) is overcome and the non-privileged documents responsive to RFP Nos. 2-7 must be produced.")
(holding that communications with the litigation funder deserved work product protection, which the adversary cannot overcome; "The Court finds that Defendants have not demonstrated that a substantial need exists for the documents at this time. Defendants have not stated that they plan on calling or deposing any of the litigation funders, or that they plan to make an issue of the litigation funding agreements at trial. To the extent that Defendants wish to question Relators about their alleged bias in the case they are free to do so, but Defendants have not presented any credible evidence that demonstrates their need for that documentation at this time.")
Case Name: Nevada v. J-M Mfg. Co., 555 F. App'x 782, 785 (10th Cir. 2014)
("A substantial need exists where 'the information sought is essential to the party's defense, is crucial to the determination of whether the defendant could be held liable for the acts alleged, or carries great probative value on contested issues.'" (citation omitted))
Case Name: Mosley v. Am. Home Assurance Co., Case No. 13-20259-CIV-KING/GARBER, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168016, at *12-13, *13-14 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 26, 2013)
(analyzing privilege protection in a first party insurance situation; "American Home, in its denial letter, reserved 'the right to maintain a denial based on other reasons that a continued investigation might reveal.' . . . Accordingly, they argue, American Home has waived any other defenses that it would have been aware of at the time of the issuance of the denial letter but did not then raise."; "Here in order to evaluate the issue of whether American Home waived any of its defenses, the Mosleys have a substantial need for materials that would bear on the issue of what further information was discovered by American Home that would support defenses that would otherwise have been waived in its denial letter and when that information was discovered.")
(analyzing work product protection for photos and video prepared when defendant and plaintiff jointly visited an asbestos site, after which plaintiff sought defendants' photos and video because plaintiff's lawyer's cameras did not work properly during the visit; "The depiction in Defendants' photos of the asbestos-containing items at the Hoechst property is key to one of the essential elements of Plaintiff's prima facie case.")
(concluding that plaintiffs could satisfy the crime-fraud standard, and therefore ordering in camera review of defendant Georgia-Pacific's communications expert involved in authoring favorable articles; "GP funded these studies in 2005 to aid in its defense of asbestos-related lawsuits. The studies were performed by experts from various organizations, who, among other things, recreated GP's historical joint compound product for the purpose of testing its biopersistence and pathogenicity. To facilitate the endeavor, GP entered into a special employment relationship with Stewart Holm, its Director of Toxicology and Chemical Management, to perform expert consulting services under the auspices of its in-house counsel, who also was significantly involved in the prepublication review process."; "Holm coauthored nearly all of the studies, which were intended to cast doubt on the capability of chrysotile asbestos to cause cancer. On the two articles that he did not coauthor, he and GP's counsel participated in lengthy 'WebEx conferences" in which they discussed the manuscripts and suggested revisions. Despite this extensive participation, none of the articles disclosed that GP's in-house counsel had reviewed the manuscripts before they were submitted for publication."; "The foregoing constitutes a sufficient factual basis for a find that the relevant communications could have been in furtherance of a fraud, and the motion court properly confirmed the recommendation directing in camera review of the internal documents."; finding that plaintiffs could overcome any work product protection for materials related to the article; "Plaintiffs will be prejudiced if they are prevented from discovering the data, protocols, process, conduct, discussion, and analyses underlying these studies. A significant expenditure of time and money would be required to duplicate the studies, if they could be exactly duplicated at all, whereas scrutiny of the underlying data may provide a permissible manner in which to attack the findings that would be consistent with the intent of the CMO to minimize the cost of and streamline discovery.")
Case Name: Moore v. Dan Holdings, Inc., No. 1:12CV503, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61378, at *23 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 30, 2013)
("'Plaintiff has demonstrated a "substantial need" for the requested information based upon its relevance and importance to her claims and the fact that Plaintiff has unsuccessfully (due to Defendants' objections to written discovery and/or at other depositions) tried to obtain the information through other means.'" (internal citation omitted))
2013-04-30 Federal NC B 7/13
Case Name: Chevron Corp. v. Donziger, No. 11 Civ. 0691 (LAK), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36353, at *101 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2013)
(ordering the law firm of Patton Boggs to produce documents to Chevron based on the crime-fraud exception; "'A substantial need for work product materials exists where the information sought is 'essential' to the party's defense, is 'crucial' to the determination of whether the defendant could be held liable for the acts alleged, or carries great probative value on contested issues.'" (citation omitted))
Case Name: Laws v. Stevens Transp., Inc., Case No. 2:12-cv-544, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22159, at *10 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 19, 2013)
(holding that the work product doctrine protected photographs of an accident scene taken the day of an accident, and that plaintiff could not overcome the protection; "Plaintiffs have not met this burden. They have not argued that without the pictures, they are unable to present a case of either liability or damages. Presumably, if no one had taken any pictures at the scene, plaintiffs would still be able to put on proof that the accident was defendants' fault, and evidence concerning the extent of Mr. Laws' [Plaintiff injured in a truck accident] injuries. Or, put another way, plaintiffs have not proved, or even suggested, that they cannot. The pictures of the rental car might be helpful to their case, but they have not shown that they are 'essential' or 'integral.'")
Case Name: Laws v. Stevens Transp., Inc., Case No. 2:12-cv-544, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22159, at *9 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 19, 2013)
(holding that the work product doctrine protected photographs of an accident scene taken the day of an accident, and that plaintiff could not overcome the protection; "In order to demonstrate substantial need for them, it is not enough just to say that they contain relevant information. Rather, '[s]ubstantial need is clearly shown when the materials sought are essential to prove the discovering party's case, or where without the information a distinct advantage would accrue to the party having it.'" (citation omitted))


text:
Delvin Choice
It may have been in Hollywood that Delvin won over America and blew away all four judges as he soared to the finals on NBC's The Voice, but that talent was home grown right here in South Carolina! In fact, Choice was recognized by the state with two resolutions in appreciation of musical accomplishments and contributions.
A singer from birth, Delvin is an Alumni of Greenville Fine Arts Center, where he studied classical music for four years, and a graduate of Wade Hampton High School. Delvin's diverse background includes numerous awards and theatrical roles in The Greenville Little Theatre's production of Ain't Misbehavin', Roger and Hammerstein's Carousal, Motown Magic, Little Shop of Horrors, Smoky Joe's Café, Ragtime the Musical, South Carolina Children's Theatre's production of Seussical The Musical, and Pippin.
In recent years, Delvin has been honored to perform the National Anthem for the Charlotte Hornets and the Carolina Panthers. Recently completing a tour with multi-grammy nominated artist Musiq Soulchild, Delvin is ready to set some new roots in Myrtle Beach.
Delvin can be seen nightly in The Carolina Opry and Time Warp shows. Help us welcome Delvin to the family!
Q: Who has been your biggest inspiration?
A: My parents have been by my side since Day 1. My mom is the strongest woman I know and my pops is the most hard working man I know, they have sacrificed so much for me over the years in order for me to be able to chase and achieve my dreams; Without them I would not be who I am today.
Q: Who are some of your favorite musical personalities from the past and present?
A: I would have to say that my all time favorite artist is Donny Hathaway, there is so much power and passion in his music; his lyrics were haunting at times but that's only because he wrote songs that spoke about where he was in life and what he dealt with. I also can't forget about Stevie Wonder, Michael Jackson, Marvin Gaye, John Legend, Bilal, Musiq Soulchild and so many other artists who have played such huge roles in my music background.
Q: What has been one of your biggest career achievements so far?
A: Joining the cast of The Carolina Opry. People might think about The Voice, but here I am finally able to do what I love for a living and on top of that I share the stage with some of the most talented musicians and singers on this side of the Mason Dixon. I've been blessed to travel all over this country and overseas performing on many different platforms but nothing beats the stage here at the Carolina Opry, it feels like home.
Q: What instruments do you play?
A: I play the piano and drums and I am learning guitar now.
Q: What is the strangest thing that has ever happened while you were on stage?
A: That would have to be during the last musical I was in, Ragtime. There was a power outage during the second half of the show and the lighting tech was about to call it a night but I suggested that we at least find a way to tie the story together for the audience, and that we did. We ended up performing the last scene of the show with no stage lights, props, no mics, or anything, just our voices and passion for what we do. It's now known as "The night the lights went out in Greenville". It was such a powerful moment in that theatre, being able to tell a hard story such as Ragtime with no distractions.
Q: What do you do when you are not on stage?
A: I enjoy relaxing at home, cooking, shopping and going bowling. I also enjoy spending time with my family and friends. Traveling is a must as well!
Q: If you could blink and be in your favorite place, where would it be?
A: Bermuda!
Q: What is your favorite TVshow?
A: Anything CSI, I think in my past life I was a crime scene investigator.
Q: What is your favorite food?
A: I LOOOOOVE anything seafood!
Q: Do you have any pets?
A: I have a three-year-old French Bulldog named Bane, he is my son and he is so full of personality.
Q: Which sports teams have your heart?
A: Steeler Nation and C-L-E-M-S-O-N T-I-G-E-RRR-S, FIGHT TIGERS, FIGHT TIGERS, FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!!

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


More often than not that's where it ends. The tool fades away. Nothing more is heard. But brainstorming is the exception.
Why has brainstorming enjoyed staying power, when so many other tools fade away? Perhaps because it works for generating ideas. Provided you do it right, and comply with some fairly simple rules. Over the years of leading ideation sessions for a wide range of clients, I've identified some guidelines to insure success.
1. Make sure the facilitator sets the right tone. Without a strong and enthusiastic leader, the session can easily veer off course. Participants may be reluctant to let loose and engage in a sense of playfulness. At the outset, the facilitator should stress the need for brevity in making comments, and simple things like one person speaking at a time, refraining from analyzing another person's idea, and the importance of building on other's ideas. The facilitators' job is to build trust. When in this role, I walk around the teams of participants and observe the body language. I observe the way the team is approaching the assignment. If they've bogged down, I'll go into coaching mode, encouraging and even temporarily becoming part of the group to model the behavior that encourages risk-taking.
Leading these sessions is one of the most fascinating roles I am invited to lead, and I'm always learning. I'd love to hear from you as to what some of your favorite techniques are for getting groups to generate ideas. I invite you to share them with me, and perhaps I'll write them up in a future Forbes blog post.


We do not ever produce the same building twice. We start every new construction project from scratch; every house we create is like no other. Our employees are challenged daily by taking clients concepts and constructing works of art with them. Our unique line of work has us working with buildings from the early 1900's to present-day, giving us an exceptionally rare insight into what does and doesn't stand up to the test of time.
VBCC Mechanical Designed, run and maintained by Allwright Contracting, Engineered by Tower Engineering, and built by Prairie HVAC.
This experience has a remarkable impact on our construction methods making them – unparalleled.


Desirable Arnold**Near shopping, swimming, golf, AACC**Wonderful location**Heat pump 4 yrs**Roof 2018**Addition in rear for great TV room**Appliances 2 years**HWH 2018**Much larger than it looks! Ready to go!
Listing courtesy of RE/MAX One. Selling Office: .


One of the most common types of business insurance is commercial property insurance, which provides a wide range of coverage for buildings, inventory, equipment, tools and more. Losses from fire, break-in, vandalism, wind and other natural or manmade disasters are examples of what is typically covered. A basic commercial property insurance policy may be all you need, although the types of coverage can vary between different insurance companies.


text:
Rick Diamond/Getty Images for Love & Acceptance
Ty Herndon and CMT's Cody Alan to Host Concert for Love and Acceptance
Terri Clark, Michael Ray, Cassadee Pope Join Lineup for GLAAD Benefit
by Alison Bonaguro 3/28/2018
The night after this year's CMT Music Awards on June 6, CMT plans to lock arms with GLAAD to host another kind of show that will put country music to good use.
GLAAD (Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) is the world's largest LGBTQ media advocacy organization, and the group's CEO knows just what live music is capable of.
"Music has the power to uplift, empower, and change hearts and minds across the country," said Sarah Kate Ellis, GLAAD President and CEO. "GLAAD is honored to present the third Concert for Love and Acceptance to help drive forward acceptance with an amazing lineup of talent and messages of support for the LGBTQ community. As we fight attempts to roll back equality and compromise the ground we have gained for acceptance, it is important for our community to continue to tell our stories and for allies to stand up and be counted."
The upcoming Concert for Love and Acceptance will take place on June 7 at Nashville's Wildhorse Saloon, with CMT's Cody Alan hosting with Ty Herndon. Performers include Herndon, Terri Clark, Cassadee Pope, Michael Ray, Calum Scott and Brandon Stansell. "I'm thrilled to partner with GLAAD once again for this show that has broken so much new ground and started so many important conversations over the past three years," said Herndon, who came out in 2014.
Embedded from cache.vevo.com.
"Letting our LGBTQ friends, family and neighbors know they are accepted and loved just as they are isn't just making the world a better place — it's literally saving lives — and I'm so proud to be a part of it," he said.
Since 2015, the concert has featured performances from Reba McEntire, Chris Carmack, Crystal Gayle, Billy Gilman, Kree Harrison, Mickey Guyton, Levi Hummon, Runaway June, Ryan Kinder, Meghan Lindsey, Street Corner Symphony, Thompson Square, Trent Harmon and more.
Alison Bonaguro
Alison makes her living loving country music. She's based in Chicago, but she's always leaving her heart in Nashville.


Sandra Magee is an All About Smiles oral health professional devoted to maintaining the natural beauty and health of your smile using preventive dental hygiene procedures that will result in beautiful, long lasting smiles!
Proudly serving clients from all over Kern County, California including the communities of Arvin, Lamont, Wasco, Delano, Mojave, Tehachapi and more.
Turn LEFT onto G ST.
A standard of excellence in personalized dental hygiene care enables us to provide the quality dental hygiene services our clients expect and deserve. We provide complete dental hygiene treatment planning and use state of the art techniques to help you achieve optimal oral health. Should a dental emergency occur, we make every effort to refer you to another oral health professional (dental specialist or general dentist) to be seen as soon as possible.
As a practice, we are true believers that preventive care and education are the keys to optimal dental health. We strive to provide "oral health care" vs. "disease care". That's why we focus on checking the overall health of your teeth and gums, performing oral cancer screenings, and appropriate dental referrals when necessary. We also know that routine cleanings, flossing, sealants, and fluoride are all helpful in preventing dental disease. We strive to work with you in a team effort not only do we focus on the beauty of your smile, we're also concerned about your overall health. A review of your medical history can help us stay informed of your overall health, any new medications, and any illnesses that may impact your dental health.
Infection control in our office is also very important to us. To protect our clients and ourselves, we strictly maintain sterilization and cross contamination processes using standards recommended by the American Dental Association (ADA), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and the Center for Disease Control (CDC). We are HIPAA compliant.
As your oral health professionals, we want you to be confident knowing that your registered dental hygienist in alternative practice (RDHAP) is a highly trained and skilled clinician. We pride ourselves in providing the care you need to keep your smile dazzling and healthy. To give you the best possible service and results, our RDHAP is committed to continual education and learning. She attends dental lectures, meetings, and dental conventions to stay informed of new techniques, the latest products, and the newest equipment that a modern dental hygiene office can utilize to provide state-of-the-art dental hygiene care. Also, she stays abreast of the changes and recommendations for our profession.
Building a foundation of trust by treating our clients as special individuals is vital to the success of our practice. We understand how uneasy some clients may feel about their visits, and how we can make a difference in providing a relaxing, and positive experience. All About Smiles is dedicated to providing you with excellent, personalized care and service to make your visits as comfortable and pleasant as possible.
We thank you for allowing us to take care of your dental hygiene needs and look forward to serving you.
Make an appointment today…..we'll give you a BIGGER reason to smile!


text:
Posted tagged 'Madonna jokes'
Youthful follies.
Elizabeth Lauten, who posted that rant on FB about the Obama girls and their clothes, resigned today as communications director for a GOP congressman from Tennessee. Well, at least she won't have to deal with that interview question "why did you leave your last job?".
Some wonder where Elizabeth Lauten will end up next. I got dibs on FOX News in the pool.
Madonna, 56, is topless in a new photo spread in "Interview" magazine. And you think you embarrass YOUR children.
Cleveland QB Brian Hoyer, defending his role as the team's starter. "We're 7-5. That just doesn't happen by luck." No, but getting to have played Tennessee, Jacksonville, Oakland, Atlanta, New Orleans and Tampa Bay doesn't hurt either.
Some tickets for tonight's Miami-NY #MNF game were going for $15. But many Jets fans were holding out to be paid more.
It's getting bad. At this point the only halfway decent team playing football in New Jersey might be 7-5 #Rutgers. #NYJets #nyjets
The Washington Redskins had a "Cyber Monday" deal for season tickets. "By Telephone Only." Sounds like Dan Snyder and company get the concept of "Cyber Monday" about as well as they get the idea of putting together a decent football team.
Cyber Monday is over. The one day of the year when average American women are as focused on their jobs as most men are during the first day of March Madness.
Lindsey Vonn says her boyfriend Tiger Woods is an "inspiration". "You're just figuring that out now?" responded comedy writers.
The NFL has decided not to fine the St. Louis Rams players who made the "hands up don't shoot" gesture before yesterday's game with Oakland. Nor are they fining the Raiders who looked like they were REALLY surrendering.
TC says "The Raiders played the entire game with their hands up also. Did you know their "Challenge Flag" is white?"
House Speaker John Boehner has indicated another government shutdown could be possible when a temporary funding measure expires Dec. 11. Here's a simple solution – NO ONE from Congress goes home for the holidays until they have a deal, period..
The winner of Uruguay's presidential election, Tabare Vazques, has promised to create the first state-run marijuana marketplace. In related news, travel agents report a sudden jump in calls asking to visit Uruguay.
Tags: Boehner jokes, Congress jokes, Cyber Monday jokes, Elizabeth Lauten jokes, Janice Hough, Madonna jokes, Raiders jokes, Rams jokes, Tiger Woods jokes
Super question.
Super Bowl XLVI is history. So what time this week does the pre-game show for Super Bowl XLVII start?
Okay, so this year's Super Bowl commercials may not have been that memorable. On the brighter side for viewers, especially in Florida and South Carolina, none of them were made by political super PACS.
New England WR Wes Welker dropped a pass late in the fourth quarter that resulted in New York getting the ball back with time to drive for the winning touchdown. NBC commentator Cris Collinsworth commented that Welker makes that catch "100 times out of 100." Uh, make that 99.
Not a NY Giants or NE Patriots fan, but at least they didn't get to the championship with a payroll two to four times that of most of the rest of the league. (Yes, Yankees and Red Sox fans, I'm talking to you.)
Who says football players don't need math? For New England being able to count to 12 would have been helpful.
A GOP friend posted that President Obama called the NY Giants and told them to share the trophy with other 31 teams. Right, and Mitt Romney called the Patriots and told them how to deduct the loss as a write-off.
(My friend Jeff Klein says "Newt Gingrich told both teams he could build them a training facility on the moon."
Open note to the younger generation: Madonna was the first Lady Gaga.
Congratulations to those who bet the first score in the Super Bowl would be a safety. Both of them.
Today's Giants-Patriots Super Bowl game is a Jets fan's worst nightmare. Well, except for the sight of Joe Namath weaving towards a pretty sideline reporter.
Confused. Madonna sang "Like a Prayer.". But where was Tim Tebow.
NFL Commissioner Roger Goddell is now saying that eliminating the Pro Bowl is a possibility. "That would be terrible," said absolutely nobody.
Only 366 days until Super Bowl 47, Feb 3, 2013 in New Orleans. How much do we think Drew Brees and company will be motivated to make it a home game?
There's an explanation for the latest controversy over Peyton Manning. Apparently he HAS been cleared to play professional football. But based on the 2011 season, that leaves out playing for the Colts.
Seattle officials are working on plans to build a new arena ,and according to media reports are looking into acquiring the Sacramento Kings. Some are even more ambitious, and hope they can land an actual professional team.
Categories: sports jokes, Uncategorized
Tags: Janice Hough, Madonna jokes, Madonna Super Bowl jokes, NY Giants jokes, Patriots jokes, Super Bowl humor, Super Bowl Jokes
Pre Pre Big Game Show.
Technicially, if you're not an official sponsor, you're not allowed to use the words "Super Bowl." Yeah, hate to put a non-profit like the NFL at risk of losing money.
Madonna says there will be "no nipple" in her Super Bowl halftime show. Not to say the former Material Girl is getting up there in years but the way NBC will assure this is by only showing Madonna above the waist.
49ers coach Jim Harbaugh has signed up to play the A T & T Pebble Beach Pro-Am. Which means for the first time, CBS plans to schedule cameras every day on the course for the post-round handshakes.
The Campaign Media Analysis Group (CMAG) analyzed political ads shown in Florida this past week and said 92% them were negative. As someone who just spent a weekend in Florida I am shocked – 8% were actually supposed to be positive?
Sarah Palin has been saying "Annoy a liberal, vote for Newt." Uh, actually not speaking for all liberals, but a number of us would be thrllled to see more in the GOP vote for Newt.
Gingrich had a robocall in FL saying that as "Gov. of Mass, Romney vetoed a bill paying for kosher food for our seniors in nursing homes. Which meant Holocaust survivors were forced to eat non-kosher, because Romney thought $5 was too much to pay." Newt may be doing the impossible, making Mitt appear the more likable candidate.
Newt Gingrich seems like he's on a mission to make us all forget about that Howard Dean scream.
Now that the GOP primary is over, Florida residents who want to watch something embarrassing on TV will have to turn back to Orlando Magic games.
Aaron Rodgers said on a radio interview that he was disappointed in some players' effort during the Pro Bowl. "I felt like some of the guys on the NFC side embarrassed themselves." Does that make them all honorary Oakland Raiders?
This year the New York Giants are in the Super Bowl. Although at 9-7, barely over .500, many think the team didn't deserve to be in the playoffs in the first place. And really, who does the NFL think it is? The NBA?
Many changes on high school signing day for college football…. Sounds like some of these prior commitments had all the validity of a Kardashian marriage..
At Newt Gingrich's Florida "Not-quite-Victory" Party, one of the tunes was ""Hit Me With Your Best Shot" by Pat Benatar Hearing that, Mitt Romney suggested Newt invite Dick Cheney.
When a company says as part of their hold music-message "Thank you for your patience," anyone else want to scream at them "What patience, a**holes?"
Delta Airlines is apparently looking into the possibility of acquiring either US Airways or American. Thereby bringing airline travelers in the United States a step closer to one giant "Take it or Leave it Air Lines."
"You might need a life" story: A California woman and about 100 people who are fans of the Facebook game "Frontierville" reportedly posted 1,001,291 comments to a single post in order to break a Guinness World Record.
From Bill Littlejohn: The Oakland Raiders have hired Greg Knapp as offensive coordinator, a position he held with the team in 2007 and 2008.I guess they want to re-capture the glory days of JaMarcus Russell"
Categories: baseball jokes, political jokes, sports jokes, Uncategorized
Tags: Florida jokes, Janice Hough, Jim Harbaugh jokes, Madonna jokes, Super Bowl Jokes
Kosher Tequila?
No joke, a U.S. company is planning to launch a new Kosher Tequila in time for Cinco de Mayo.
Presumably each bottle will come with a free phone card, because "if you have time to drink tequila, you have time to call your mother."
Three shots and you'll be singing "Ay, ay, ay, oy!"
Kosher Tequila, just what you want for those Matzo Wrapped Burrritos and Gefilte Fish Tacos.
What's going to be their ad campaign "Kosher tequila – now you don't even need a hangover to feel guilty?"
"When you need a shot of guilt"?
"Pass out on Pass Over"?
No word yet on the kosher worm.
Madonna is apparently trying to adopt a four year old girl from Malawi. What does a 50 year old mother of three want with another whiny child. Guess she misses A-Rod more than we thought.
Barney Frank called Supreme Court judge Antonin Scala a "homophobe." Scalia corrected him quickly, saying the correct term is "misanthrope."
With the final four composed of two one-seeds, one two-seeds and one three-seeds, Cinderella officially didn't make it to the NCAA tournament. Apparently her fairy godmother invested with Bernie Madoff.
Tags: kosher tequila, Madonna jokes, March madness jokes


Looking for ideal Scented Oil Wax Manufacturer & supplier ? We have a wide selection at great prices to help you get creative. All the Scented Wax Candle are quality guaranteed. We are China Origin Factory of Wax Tarts for Warmers. If you have any question, please feel free to contact us.


We will never leave you stranded when you are having an emergency our operators are there to answer your calls 24 hours a day - so you don't have to worry about leaving a message on some machine and wait to have your call returned the next day, when it's too late. Baxi boiler avanta 28 c exclusive removed from our house a few months ago, we have had a more powerful boiler fitted, this has been in storage since as you can see it is a complete.
The government likes condenser boilers for a number of reasons a condensing boiler is more efficient because it has a second heat exchanger, or an extra large one, that scavenges the heat lost from the initial process of burning gas a by-product is steam vapour and a highly acidic condensed liquid that needs to run.