A debate with a respected and experienced colleague during a recent examination before trial resurrected the issue of whether or not a party/witness was required to produce documents reviewed in preparing for the deposition upon oral examination, on the one hand, and the extent, if any, that production of such documents was protected by the attorney-client and/or work product privileges, on the other. An analysis of the case law suggests that the answer to the question must be decided on a case-by-case basis, in general, and may require an in camera review by the Court, in particular. In People of… Read more

United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Federal appellate courts typically apply one of the following four standards of review: De Novo. The court gives no deference to the lower court’s decision and applies the same standard as the district court. Whatley v. CNA Ins. Co., 189 F.3d 1310, 1313 (11th Cir. 1999). Clearly Erroneous. “Review under the clearly erroneous standard is significantly deferential.” Concrete Pipe and Prods. v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust, 508 U.S. 602, 623 (1993). The appellate court must accept the trial court’s findings unless it’s left with the “definite and firm conviction that a… Read more