James Julian, Inc. v. Raytheon Co.
United States District Court for the District of Delaware
93 F.R.D. 138 (1982)
Facts
James Julian, Inc. (Julian) (plaintiff) brought claims under the Sherman Act and National Labor Relations Act against Raytheon Co. (Raytheon), Raytheon Service Co. (RSC) and several labor organizations and union officers (defendants). During discovery, Raytheon and RSC sought production by Julian of a binder that Julian’s counsel prepared for Julian’s principals, officers and employees to review in preparation for depositions by Raytheon and RSC. Julian asserted that counsel’s selection and organization of the documents in the binder reveal counsel’s opinions, conclusions and legal theories and therefore the binder is protected from production as attorney work product under Rule 26(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Raytheon and RSC asserted that the binder does not constitute work product, but even if it does, production of the binder is required under Rule 612 of the Federal Rules of Evidence because Julian waived the protection of the work product doctrine by using the binder to prepare witnesses for deposition. Julian asserts in response that Rule 612 exempts privileged and protected documents from the requirement that documents used to refresh the memory of a witness before a deposition be produced.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Schwartz, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 710,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,600 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
