Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): (S.D.Tex.2009). In Fisher, the plaintiffs deposed Keith Richard, a former employee of defendant Halliburton. Id. at *1. Richard’s attorney instructed Richard not to answer questions concerning documents Richard reviewed in preparation for his deposition. Id. The Court declined to extend work product privilege to “the identity of the documents [the deponent] reviewed in preparation for his deposition,” on the grounds that “imbuefing] ever compilation of documents reviewed by a witness before testifying — at trial or at deposition — with work product privilege protection would all but write Rule 612 of the Federal Rules of Evidence out of existence.” Id. at *1-2; see also In re Int’l Sys. & Controls Corp. Sec. Litig., 693 F.2d 1235, 1240 (5th Cir.1982) (quoting Fed R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)) (<HOLDING>). Since the advent of the controversy involving 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that fedrcivp 26b3 does not require absolute protection for opinion work product and noting that these materials may be discovered and admitted when mental impressions are at issue in the case and the need for the materials is compelling (B) holding that although plaintiffs claims were masked in various legal theories they were premised on a single claim of product liability and therefore fell under north carolinas product liability statute (C) holding that materials prepared by an investigative audit committee were not work product because they were not the mental impressions conclusions opinions or legal theories of an attorney (D) holding opinion work product may be discovered when mental impressions are at issue and need for material is compelling (E) holding that cover letters from counsel to an expert that do not contain mental impressions opinions or conclusions of counsel are discoverable but written notes that contained the lawyers mental impressions were protected
Output (English): holding that although plaintiffs claims were masked in various legal theories they were premised on a single claim of product liability and therefore fell under north carolinas product liability statute