United States v. Walker’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate ·

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The same is true as to the remainder of the 170 documents, which were composed chiefly of various form printouts summarizing PCA’s contracts. Even assuming the documents (or the handful of corrections and clarifications handwritten thereon) were work product or were privileged, they contain solely factual information about PCA’s business, and shed no light on Walker’s confidential communications with counsel or defense strategy. Moreover, we agree with the district court that these documents were neither work product nor attorney-client communications. The attorney-client privilege protects from disclosure the contents of confidential attorney-client communications, but does not prevent disclosure from the client’s records the underlying factual information included in attorney-client communications. See Upjohn Co. v. United States____ For this reason, putting otherwise non-privileged business records (like the contract summaries here) in the hands of an attorney-or printing out such records for an attorney to review-does not render the documents privileged or work product. See Ratliff v. Davis Polk & Wardwell, 354 F.3d 165, 170-71 (2d Cir.2003) (“Documents obtain no special protection because they are housed in a law firm; ‘[a]ny other rule would permit a person to prevent disclosure of any of his papers by the simple expedient of keeping them in the possession of his attorney.’ ”)____”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lee v. Chicago Youth Centers

2. “[P]utting otherwise non-privileged ... records ... in the hands of an attorney-or printing out such records for an attorney to review-does not render the documents privileged or work product.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 332 F. Supp. 3d 533 - United States v. Napout

3. “United States v. Evans , 352 F.3d 65 , 68 (2d Cir. 2003) (”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. United States v. Iverson