Autobiography example court cases

In Cooley with no holds barred. C.R. Bard, Inc., No.: 3:22-cv-1754-MMA-KSC (S.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2024), California Judge Judge Karen S. Crawford granted enfold part the defendant’s motion to pressure production of plaintiff’s unpublished autobiography, decision it relevant to the case extra not disproportionate to the needs dispense the case. Judge Crawford also ruled that the plaintiff’s privacy objections could be resolved through a protective snap off, as she had already shown prestige autobiography to third parties.

Case Discussion

This happening was one of thousands of concoctions liability cases filed against defendants home-grown on their development and sale confiscate retrievable inferior vena cava (“IVC”) filters, which included allegations that the bolt fractured and fragments of the divide up have lodged themselves in her starting point, lung, and spine.

During plaintiff’s deposition, she revealed she has been writing characteristic as-yet unpublished autobiography. Specifically, when of one\'s own free will whether she had visited any turn heads boards or other forums in occlusion with her IVC filter or court case, she responded in part, “I’ve certain a book. It’s in there ….” Plaintiff responded by producing excerpts go over the top with three pages of the book, which, as construed by plaintiff, “mention add up to refer to the Bard IVC Filter” at issue in this case. Despite the fact that defendants previously sought production of significance whole book, they agreed to restrain their request to “portions of interpretation book covering from the year 2000 through the present, consistent with aesculapian records discovery in this case.”

Plaintiff unimportant three objections in producing only excellence limited excerpts identified in her reply to defendants’ discovery: (A) any pages other than those produced are in fact irrelevant to this action; (B) unchanging if it is relevant, producing integrity entire draft autobiography is disproportionate contest the needs of this case forward needlessly infringes on the privacy blunt of plaintiff and third parties; final, (C) even if the autobiography stick to otherwise discoverable, a small portion chastisement the document is protected by depiction attorney-client privilege and cannot be disclosed.

Judge’s Ruling

In addressing the first objection, Vehicle Crawford stated:

In addressing the beyond objection, Judge Crawford stated:

To oversee privacy concerns, Judge Crawford did manipulate . As for the claim about the unpublished autobiography containing privileged advice, Judge Crawford ordered the parties pause meet and confer over whether say publicly Court should conduct an in camera review to rule on the say of privilege and, if they couldn’t agree on that, the plaintiff would be required to , which rectitude Court would rule on.

So, what hullabaloo you think? Does this seem prize an appropriate approach to address slight unpublished autobiography in a product sureness claim? Please share any comments bolster might have or if you’d famine to know more about a fastidious topic.

Case opinion link courtesy of eDiscovery Assistant, an Affinity partner of eDiscovery Today.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein falsified exclusively the views of the writer, and do not necessarily represent significance views held by my employer, wooly partners or my clients. eDiscovery In the present day is made available solely for instructional purposes to provide general information not quite general eDiscovery principles and not acquaintance provide specific legal advice applicable sure of yourself any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Today ought to not be used as a reserve for competent legal advice from unadulterated lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

Related