{"id":19,"date":"2014-06-09T18:32:00","date_gmt":"2014-06-09T18:32:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.sherin.com\/professional-liability\/2014\/06\/09\/the-work-product-doctrine-has-limits\/"},"modified":"2023-11-08T18:48:03","modified_gmt":"2023-11-08T18:48:03","slug":"the-work-product-doctrine-has-limits","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.sherin.com\/law-firm-defense\/2014\/06\/09\/the-work-product-doctrine-has-limits\/","title":{"rendered":"The Work-Product Doctrine Has Limits"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"secured<\/p>\n

The Massachusetts Appeals Court recently issued a decision which should remind lawyers of the limits of the work product doctrine.<\/p>\n

The Court’s ruling last week in Cahaly v. Benistar<\/a> vacated and remanded a Superior Court’s decision not to sanction a lawyer for withholding purported work product in discovery.\u00a0 At trial, a key issue had been whether employees of defendant Merrill Lynch had viewed certain web pages. \u00a0One employee, working under the direction of the company\u2019s lawyers, had read the pages, but documents reflecting his review were withheld from discovery based on the work product doctrine.\u00a0 At trial, Merrill then defended itself by asserting that “‘the Merrill people did not know” the contents of the pages.<\/p>\n

The Appeals Court applied the established doctrine that the work product doctrine can be overcome by a showing of a \u201csubstantial need,\u201d and held that \u201c[s]ubstantial need is shown where, as here, the work product at issue is central to the parties\u2019 substantive claims.\u201c \u00a0The Court also issued a reminder that \u201cfact work product\u201d \u201creceives far less protection\u201d than opinion work product, and that the question of whether Merill employees had viewed the web page was a factual question.<\/p>\n

What should lawyers take from the ruling?<\/p>\n