In Re Grand Jury Subpoena (Mark Torf/torf Environmental Management), United States of America v. Mark Torf, Torf Environmental Management, in Re Grand Jury Subpoena (Mark Torf/torf Environmental Management), United States of America, Dennis D. Ellis, Intervenor-Appellant. In Re Grand Jury Subpoena (Mark Torf/torf Environmental Management), United States of America, Dennis D. Ellis, Intervenor-Appellant. In Re Grand Jury Subpoena (Mark Torf/torf Environmental Management), United States of America, Ponderosa Paint Manufacturing, Inc., Intervenor-Appellant. In Re Grand Jury Subpoena (Mark Torf/torf Environmental Management), United States of America, Ponderosa Paint Manufacturing, Inc., Intervenor-Appellant’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
10 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently February 2022 · most notably Evergreen Trading, LLC ex rel. GN Investments, LLC v. United States (2007), Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. United States (2006)
10 district · 4 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on United States v. Nobles · United States v. Adlman · Martinez v. Ylst · Admiral Insurance v. United States District Court for the District of Arizona · In re Special September 1978 Grand Jury
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]e join a growing number of our sister circuits in employing the formulation of the “because of’ standard articulated in the Wright & Miller Federal Practice treatise. This formulation states that a document should be deemed prepared “in anticipation of litigation” and thus eligible for work product protection under Rule 26(b)(3) if “in light of the nature of the document and the factual situation in the particular case, the document can be fairly said to have been prepared or obtained because of the prospect of litigation.” 8 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, and Richard L. Marcus, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2024 (2d ed. 1994) (“Wright & Miller”) .... The “because of’ standard does not consider whether litigation was a primary or secondary motive behind the creation of a document. Rather, it considers the totality of the circumstances and affords protection when it can fairly be said that the “document was created because of anticipated litigation, and would not have been created in substantially similar form but for the prospect of that litigation[.]” Adlman, 134 F.3d at 1195.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]he “because of’ standard does not consider whether litigation was a primary or secondary motive behind the creation of a document. Rather, it considers the totality of the circumstances and affords protection when it can fairly be said that the “document was created because of anticipated litigation, and would not have been created in substantially similar form but for the prospect of that litigation [.]””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“Ordinarily, a party may not discover documents and tangible things that are prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or its representative (including the other party’s attorney, consultant, surety, indemnitor, insurer, or agent).”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.