Work Product Doctrine (WPD) Test
The FRCP takes a liberal position on discovery that broadly allows parties to seek the opposing parties’ information in
discovery. But there are limits, including the Work Product Doctrine (WPD) and Attorney Client Privilege (ACP).
The WPD protects an attorney’s work product if (1) it is a document or tangible thing, (2) otherwise discoverable, (3)
prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial, and (4) prepared by or for another party or by or for that party’s
representative.
The work product doctrine can be overcome if the party seeking discovery can show that it has (1) a substantial need for
the materials and (2) cannot obtain them in another way. Cost is not a factor. However, courts must still protect the mental
impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of a party's attorney or other representative.
Attorney-Client Privilege (ACP) Test
Attorney client privilege protects confidential communications between a lawyer and client made for the purpose of
seeking, obtaining, or providing legal advice. Established in Uphohn, the privilege applies only if (1) the communication
is intended to be confidential, (2) involves legal (not business) advice, and (3) has not been waived by disclosure to third
parties.
FRCP Rule 11 Sanctions
Under Rule 11, parties must ensure that pleadings, motions, and other papers submitted to the court are signed and
not for improper purposes, are legally warranted, and have factual support or a reasonable basis for belief.
Attorneys or unrepresented parties certify that to the best of their knowledge, after reasonable inquiry, submissions are
(1) not presented to harass, delay, or increase litigation costs, (2) grounded in existing law or a nonfrivolous
argument for changing the law, and (3) factually supported, or likely to be after further investigation.
If Rule 11 is violated, court may impose or opposing party may move for sanctions on responsible party, attorney, or
firm, including nonmonetary directives, fines, or payment of other party’s legal fees. Sanctions must be filed
separately and state with specificity alleged wrongful conduct.
Rule provides a 21-day “safe harbor” for parties to withdraw/correct offending papers to avoid sanctions. Rule 11
promotes integrity in court filings by deterring frivolous claims, defenses, abusive litigation tactics by allowing Defendant
to police Complaint.
SAME TRANSACTION OR OCCURRENCE TESTS
The modern rules of civil procedure prioritize efficiency while balancing fairness and the prevention of prejudice.
This balance is reflected in several Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), including:
Rule 13(a): Compulsory Counterclaims
Rule 15(c): Relation Back of Amendments
Rule 20: Permissive Joinder
Preclusion of claims/res judicata
These rules utilize the “same transaction or occurrence” test to determine whether claims or parties are sufficiently related
to justify being addressed together in a single action. Claims that arise from the same set of facts or are closely connected
may need to be tried together to promote judicial economy and avoid inconsistent rulings. Conversely, claims lacking
such a relationship may be pursued separately to ensure fairness and avoid undue complexity.
Frameworks for the "Same Transaction or Occurrence" Test:
Courts apply different frameworks to assess whether claims arise from the same transaction or occurrence:
1. Logical Relationship Test (Most Liberal): Claims are logically related if they arise from the same set of
underlying facts or are connected in a way that judicial efficiency would benefit from addressing them together.
2. Same Evidence Test: Claims arise from the same transaction if substantially the same evidence supports or
refutes both claims.
3. Same Issues of Fact and Law Test: Claims are related if they involve largely the same factual and legal issues.
Illustrations of the Test:
1. Insolia v. Philip Morris Inc.:
o The court applied the logical relationship test to claims by multiple plaintiffs alleging fraud and harm
caused by the defendant’s tobacco products.
o Ruling: The claims failed the test because they involved different plaintiffs, spanning decades, with
varying smoking histories. Joinder under Rule 20 was denied.
2. Kedra v. City of Philadelphia:
o The court applied the logical relationship test to allegations of police brutality spanning 14-15 months.
o Defendants argued improper joinder under Rule 20(a).
o Ruling: The court upheld joinder, emphasizing judicial efficiency, and noted that any prejudice could be
cured by severing claims under Rule 21.
3. Wigglesworth v. Teamsters Local Union:
o The court applied the same evidence test (from the Bose standard) to a plaintiff's claim of rights
violations and the defendant’s counterclaim for defamation.
o Ruling: The same evidence did not support both claims, so the counterclaim was permissive under Rule
13(b), not compulsory under Rule 13(a).
