vs et al This case is about and how much there is where it is how it is handled who knows about it OK v Tyson Cargill
argues VIOLATION Rule 16(f) Rule 26(e) Rule 26(g) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure failed to timely produce failed to supplement or correct failed to reasonably inquire
these documents are work product argues Work Product Doctrine? originated in 1 Shelters the mental processes of the attorney 2 United States v. Nobles Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947) codified by: FRPC 26(b)(3) 422 U.S. 225, 238 (1975)
3Does not include underlying facts. Garcia v. City of El Centro, 214 F.R.D. 587, 591 (S.D.Cal.2003) Lifewise Master Funding v. Telebank, 206 F.R.D. 298, 303 (D.Utah 2002) 4 Party may choose form of production but relevant information must be produced Koch Materials Co. v. Shore Slurry Seal, Inc., 208 F.R.D. 109, 122 (D.N.J.2002)
5A party knows what its agents know
No violation of 16(f) The documents are work product. protected by 26(b)(3) as in, the actual documents not the underlying facts ERGO
Noviolation of 26(e) failed to correctly respond and to correct its response to interrogatories BUT no prejudice no sanction Rule 37(c)(1)
Yesviolation of Rule 26(g) Lawyers must and signature certifies that the lawyer has made a reasonable effort to assure that the client has provided all the information and documents available... think
counsel knew
Awards Oklahoma its expenses, including reasonable attorney fees, incurred as a result of... incorrect and incomplete responses to the interrogatories.