Source: https://www.larsenrico.com/utahs-attorney-work-product-privilege-the-basics-sources/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 12:49:57+00:00

Document:
3. By or for another party or by or for that party’s representative.
Gold Standard, Inc. v. American Barrick Res. Corp., 801 P.2d 909, 910 (Utah 1990).
United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 238 (1975) (“[T]he work-product doctrine shelters the mental processes of the attorney, providing a privileged area within which he can analyze and prepare his client’s case.”).
In re Air Crash Disaster at Sioux City, 133 F.R.D. 515, 519 (N.D.Ill.1990) (“Work product includes ‘[s]ubject matter that relates to the preparation, strategy, and appraisal of the strengths and weaknesses of an action, or to the activities of the attorneys involved, rather than to the underlying evidence.’”).
Rule 26 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure.
(b)(5) Trial preparation materials. A party may obtain otherwise discoverable documents and tangible things prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or by or for that other party’s representative (including the party’s attorney, consultant, surety, indemnitor, insurer, or agent) only upon a showing that the party seeking discovery has substantial need of the materials and that the party is unable without undue hardship to obtain substantially equivalent materials by other means. In ordering discovery of such materials, the court shall protect against disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of an attorney or other representative of a party.
(b)(6) Statement previously made about the action. A party may obtain without the showing required in paragraph (b)(5) a statement concerning the action or its subject matter previously made by that party. Upon request, a person not a party may obtain without the required showing a statement about the action or its subject matter previously made by that person. If the request is refused, the person may move for a court order under Rule 37. A statement previously made is (A) a written statement signed or approved by the person making it, or (B) a stenographic, mechanical, electronic, or other recording, or a transcription thereof, which is a substantially verbatim recital of an oral statement by the person making it and contemporaneously recorded.
(b)(7)(A) Trial-preparation protection for draft reports or disclosures. Paragraph (b)(5) protects drafts of any report or disclosure required under paragraph (a)(4), regardless of the form in which the draft is recorded.
(b)(7)(B)(iii) identify assumptions that the party’s attorney provided and that the expert relied on in forming the opinions to be expressed.
(b)(7)(C)(ii) on showing exceptional circumstances under which it is impracticable for the party to obtain facts or opinions on the same subject by other means.
(b)(8) Claims of privilege or protection of trial preparation materials.
Rule 26(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
(ii) for discovery under (D), also pay the other party a fair portion of the fees and expenses it reasonably incurred in obtaining the expert’s facts and opinions.
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 16(a)(2).
Information Not Subject to Disclosure. Except as permitted by Rule 16(a)(1)(A)-(D), (F), and (G), this rule does not authorize the discovery or inspection of reports, memoranda, or other internal government documents made by an attorney for the government or other government agent in connection with investigating or prosecuting the case. Nor does this rule authorize the discovery or inspection of statements made by prospective government witnesses except as provided in 18 U.S.C. §3500.
Utah Rules of Prof. Conduct, Rule 1.6.
The principle of client-lawyer confidentiality is given effect by related bodies of law: the attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine and the rule of confidentiality established in professional ethics. The attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine apply in judicial and other proceedings in which a lawyer may be called as a witness or otherwise required to produce evidence concerning a client. The rule of client-lawyer confidentiality applies in situations other than those where evidence is sought from the lawyer through compulsion of law. The confidentiality rule, for example, applies not only to matters communicated in confidence by the client but also to all information relating to the representation, whatever its source. A lawyer may not disclose such information except as authorized or required by the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law.
Utah Code Ann. § 63G-2-305(18) (Effective 07/01/14)(GRAMA).
“The following records are protected if properly classified by a governmental entity:. . .
Restatement of the Law (3rd) Governing Lawyers.
(1) Work product consists of tangible material or its intangible equivalent in unwritten or oral form, other than underlying facts, prepared by a lawyer for litigation then in progress or in reasonable anticipation of future litigation.
(2) Opinion work product consists of the opinions or mental impressions of a lawyer; all other work product is ordinary work product.
(3) Except for material which by applicable law is not so protected. Work product is immune from discovery or other compelled disclosure to the extent stated in §§ 88 (ordinary work product) and 89 (opinion work product) when the immunity is invoked as described in § 90.
(2) is unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the material by other means.
 Utah Court’s use the term “privilege” when referring to the doctrine. Featherstone v. Schaerrer, 2001 UT 86, ¶33, 34 P.3d 194 (2001). Some courts, however, refer to it as a “doctrine” or “immunity” rather than “privilege.” Some resist terming it a privilege because the protection is not absolute—although “core” or “opinion” work product that encompasses the mental impressions, conclusions, opinion, or legal theories of an attorney or other representative of a party concerning the litigation is generally afforded near absolute protection from discovery. See In re Cendant Corp. Sec. Litig., 343 F.3d 658, 663 (3d Cir. 2003).
 In diversity cases the courts apply federal law to resolve work-product claims and state law to resolve attorney-client claims. See Frontier Ref., Inc. v. Gorman-Rupp Co., Inc., 136 F.3d 695 n.10 (10th Cir. 1998) (“Unlike the attorney client privilege, the work product privilege is governed, even in diversity cases, by a uniform federal standard embodied in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)….”); United Coal Cos. v. Powell Constr. Co., 839 F.2d 958, 966 (3d Cir. 1988); In re Powerhouse Licensing, LLC, 441 F.3d 467, 472 (6th Cir. 2006); Baker v. General Motors Corp., 209 F.3d 1051, 1053 (8th Cir. 2000); Fed. R. Evid. 501; Jewell v. Holzer Hosp. Found., Inc., 899 F.2d 1507, 1513 (6th Cir. 1990).
 Miles v. M/V Mississippi Queen, 753 F.2d 1349 (5th Cir. 1985) (error where district court declined to compel production of Plaintiff’s own prior witness statement obtained by defendant’s investigators investigating other claims used at trial to impeach plaintiff—exception to work-product protection).

References: v. 
 v. 
 §3500
 § 63
 § 90
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.