KEVIN PHILLIPS, an individual, Plaintiff, vs. C.R. BARD, INC., a foreign corporation, BARD PERIPHERAL VASCULAR, INC., Defendants., 290 F.R.D. 615

Summary

HOLDINGS: [1]-On request for reconsideration of denial of discovery requests based on attorney client privilege and work product, the court declined to reconsider discovery of defendants' Corporate Management Committee's reports; [2]-Plaintiff was not entitled to a specified memorandum under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3) because an in camera review of the document revealed that, while the memorandum may have pre-dated an expert's formal retention by defendant's legal department, it was clear that it was prepared at the direction of in-house counsel in anticipation of litigation; [3]- Because the litigation purpose so permeated any non-litigation purpose that the two purposes could not be discretely separated from the factual nexus as a whole, the expert's report, including the redacted portion of the Remedial Action Plans that were quoted in the report, was protected work product.