http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills info@washingtonwatch.com http://www.pjdoland.com/chai/?v=0.1 http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/history/110_PL_110-322.html?rev=33358 <p>S. 2450 would amend the Federal Rules of Evidence to address the waiver of the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine.</p> <h2 id="toc0"> Detailed Summary </h2> <p>&lt;b&gt;(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)&lt;/b&gt;</p> <p>Amends the Federal Rules of Evidence with respect to the disclosure of a communication or information covered by the attorney-client privilege and work product protection.</p> <p>Provides that, when such a disclosure is made in a federal proceeding or to a federal office or agency, and waives the attorney-client privilege or work-product protection, the waiver extends to an undisclosed communication or information in a federal or state proceeding only if: (1) the waiver is intentional; (2) the disclosed and undisclosed communications or information concern the same subject matter; and (3) they ought in fairness to be considered together.</p> <p>States that, when the disclosure is made in a federal proceeding or to a federal office or agency, it does not operate as a waiver in a federal or state proceeding if: (1) the disclosure is inadvertent; (2) the holder of the privilege or protection took reasonable steps to prevent disclosure; and (3) the holder promptly took reasonable steps to rectify the error.</p> <p>Declares that, when the disclosure is made in a state proceeding and is not the subject of a state-court order concerning waiver, it does not operate as a waiver in a federal proceeding if the disclosure: (1) would not be a waiver under this rule if it had been made in a federal proceeding; or (2) is not waived under law of the state where the disclosure occurred.</p> <p>&lt;br&gt;</p> <!--Leave in the 'summary' tags if you want the latest summary from the Congressional Research Service automatically to replace the text between the tags once it becomes available. --> <h2 id="toc1"> Status of the Legislation </h2> <p>Latest Major Action: 9/11/2008: Presented to President.</p> <!-- Leave in the 'status' tags if you want the latest reported status from THOMAS automatically to replace the text between the tags once it becomes available. --> <h2 id="toc2"> Points in Favor </h2> <p>(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should pass!)<br /> <!-- First editor: Go ahead and take out the sentence in parentheses, and this notice! --> </p> <h2 id="toc3"> Points Against </h2> <p>(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should not pass!)<br /> <!-- First editor: Go ahead and take out the sentence in parentheses, and this notice! --> </p> 33358@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Thu, 09 Oct 2008 19:10:07 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/history/110_PL_110-322.html?rev=30482 <p>S. 2450 would amend the Federal Rules of Evidence to address the waiver of the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine.</p> <h2 id="toc4"> Detailed Summary </h2> <p>&lt;b&gt;(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)&lt;/b&gt;</p> <p>Amends the Federal Rules of Evidence with respect to the disclosure of a communication or information covered by the attorney-client privilege and work product protection.</p> <p>Provides that, when such a disclosure is made in a federal proceeding or to a federal office or agency, and waives the attorney-client privilege or work-product protection, the waiver extends to an undisclosed communication or information in a federal or state proceeding only if: (1) the waiver is intentional; (2) the disclosed and undisclosed communications or information concern the same subject matter; and (3) they ought in fairness to be considered together.</p> <p>States that, when the disclosure is made in a federal proceeding or to a federal office or agency, it does not operate as a waiver in a federal or state proceeding if: (1) the disclosure is inadvertent; (2) the holder of the privilege or protection took reasonable steps to prevent disclosure; and (3) the holder promptly took reasonable steps to rectify the error.</p> <p>Declares that, when the disclosure is made in a state proceeding and is not the subject of a state-court order concerning waiver, it does not operate as a waiver in a federal proceeding if the disclosure: (1) would not be a waiver under this rule if it had been made in a federal proceeding; or (2) is not waived under law of the state where the disclosure occurred.</p> <!--Leave in the 'summary' tags if you want the latest summary from the Congressional Research Service automatically to replace the text between the tags once it becomes available. --> <h2 id="toc5"> Status of the Legislation </h2> <p>Latest Major Action: 9/11/2008: Presented to President.</p> <!-- Leave in the 'status' tags if you want the latest reported status from THOMAS automatically to replace the text between the tags once it becomes available. --> <h2 id="toc6"> Points in Favor </h2> <p>(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should pass!)<br /> <!-- First editor: Go ahead and take out the sentence in parentheses, and this notice! --> </p> <h2 id="toc7"> Points Against </h2> <p>(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should not pass!)<br /> <!-- First editor: Go ahead and take out the sentence in parentheses, and this notice! --> </p> 30482@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Thu, 11 Sep 2008 19:15:25 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/history/110_PL_110-322.html?rev=30431 <p>S. 2450 would amend the Federal Rules of Evidence to address the waiver of the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine.</p> <h2 id="toc8"> Detailed Summary </h2> <p>&lt;b&gt;(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)&lt;/b&gt;</p> <p>Amends the Federal Rules of Evidence with respect to the disclosure of a communication or information covered by the attorney-client privilege and work product protection.</p> <p>Provides that, when such a disclosure is made in a federal proceeding or to a federal office or agency, and waives the attorney-client privilege or work-product protection, the waiver extends to an undisclosed communication or information in a federal or state proceeding only if: (1) the waiver is intentional; (2) the disclosed and undisclosed communications or information concern the same subject matter; and (3) they ought in fairness to be considered together.</p> <p>States that, when the disclosure is made in a federal proceeding or to a federal office or agency, it does not operate as a waiver in a federal or state proceeding if: (1) the disclosure is inadvertent; (2) the holder of the privilege or protection took reasonable steps to prevent disclosure; and (3) the holder promptly took reasonable steps to rectify the error.</p> <p>Declares that, when the disclosure is made in a state proceeding and is not the subject of a state-court order concerning waiver, it does not operate as a waiver in a federal proceeding if the disclosure: (1) would not be a waiver under this rule if it had been made in a federal proceeding; or (2) is not waived under law of the state where the disclosure occurred.</p> <!--Leave in the 'summary' tags if you want the latest summary from the Congressional Research Service automatically to replace the text between the tags once it becomes available. --> <h2 id="toc9"> Status of the Legislation </h2> <p>Latest Major Action: 9/8/2008: Cleared for White House.</p> <!-- Leave in the 'status' tags if you want the latest reported status from THOMAS automatically to replace the text between the tags once it becomes available. --> <h2 id="toc10"> Points in Favor </h2> <p>(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should pass!)<br /> <!-- First editor: Go ahead and take out the sentence in parentheses, and this notice! --> </p> <h2 id="toc11"> Points Against </h2> <p>(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should not pass!)<br /> <!-- First editor: Go ahead and take out the sentence in parentheses, and this notice! --> </p> 30431@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Thu, 11 Sep 2008 09:50:00 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/history/110_PL_110-322.html?rev=20420 <p>S. 2450 would amend the Federal Rules of Evidence to address the waiver of the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine.</p> <h2 id="toc12"> Detailed Summary </h2> <p>(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to provide a detailed summary of the bill!)</p> <!--Leave in the 'summary' tags if you want the latest summary from the Congressional Research Service automatically to replace the text between the tags once it becomes available. --> <h2 id="toc13"> Status of the Legislation </h2> <p>Latest Major Action: 2/28/2008: Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.</p> <!-- Leave in the 'status' tags if you want the latest reported status from THOMAS automatically to replace the text between the tags once it becomes available. --> <h2 id="toc14"> Points in Favor </h2> <p>(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should pass!)<br /> <!-- First editor: Go ahead and take out the sentence in parentheses, and this notice! --> </p> <h2 id="toc15"> Points Against </h2> <p>(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should not pass!)<br /> <!-- First editor: Go ahead and take out the sentence in parentheses, and this notice! --> </p> 20420@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Fri, 14 Mar 2008 03:08:24 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/history/110_PL_110-322.html?rev=20421 <p>S. 2450 would amend the Federal Rules of Evidence to address the waiver of the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine.</p> <h2 id="toc16"> Detailed Summary </h2> <p>&lt;b&gt;(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)&lt;/b&gt;</p> <p>Amends the Federal Rules of Evidence with respect to the disclosure of a communication or information covered by the attorney-client privilege and work product protection.</p> <p>Provides that, when such a disclosure is made in a federal proceeding or to a federal office or agency, and waives the attorney-client privilege or work-product protection, the waiver extends to an undisclosed communication or information in a federal or state proceeding only if: (1) the waiver is intentional; (2) the disclosed and undisclosed communications or information concern the same subject matter; and (3) they ought in fairness to be considered together.</p> <p>States that, when the disclosure is made in a federal proceeding or to a federal office or agency, it does not operate as a waiver in a federal or state proceeding if: (1) the disclosure is inadvertent; (2) the holder of the privilege or protection took reasonable steps to prevent disclosure; and (3) the holder promptly took reasonable steps to rectify the error.</p> <p>Declares that, when the disclosure is made in a state proceeding and is not the subject of a state-court order concerning waiver, it does not operate as a waiver in a federal proceeding if the disclosure: (1) would not be a waiver under this rule if it had been made in a federal proceeding; or (2) is not waived under law of the state where the disclosure occurred.</p> <!--Leave in the 'summary' tags if you want the latest summary from the Congressional Research Service automatically to replace the text between the tags once it becomes available. --> <h2 id="toc17"> Status of the Legislation </h2> <p>Latest Major Action: 2/28/2008: Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.</p> <!-- Leave in the 'status' tags if you want the latest reported status from THOMAS automatically to replace the text between the tags once it becomes available. --> <h2 id="toc18"> Points in Favor </h2> <p>(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should pass!)<br /> <!-- First editor: Go ahead and take out the sentence in parentheses, and this notice! --> </p> <h2 id="toc19"> Points Against </h2> <p>(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should not pass!)<br /> <!-- First editor: Go ahead and take out the sentence in parentheses, and this notice! --> </p> 20421@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Fri, 14 Mar 2008 03:08:24 EDT http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/history/110_PL_110-322.html?rev=14624 <p>S. 2450 would amend the Federal Rules of Evidence to address the waiver of the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine.</p> <h2 id="toc20"> Detailed Summary </h2> <p>(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to provide a detailed summary of the bill!)</p> <!--Leave in the 'summary' tags if you want the latest summary from the Congressional Research Service automatically to replace the text between the tags once it becomes available. --> <h2 id="toc21"> Status of the Legislation </h2> <p>(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to update the status of the bill!)</p> <!-- Leave in the 'status' tags if you want the latest reported status from THOMAS automatically to replace the text between the tags once it becomes available. --> <h2 id="toc22"> Points in Favor </h2> <p>(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should pass!)<br /> <!-- First editor: Go ahead and take out the sentence in parentheses, and this notice! --> </p> <h2 id="toc23"> Points Against </h2> <p>(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should not pass!)<br /> <!-- First editor: Go ahead and take out the sentence in parentheses, and this notice! --> </p> 14624@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Wed, 12 Dec 2007 17:30:08 EST http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/history/110_PL_110-322.html?rev=14625 <p>S. 2450 would amend the Federal Rules of Evidence to address the waiver of the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine.</p> <h2 id="toc24"> Detailed Summary </h2> <p>(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to provide a detailed summary of the bill!)</p> <!--Leave in the 'summary' tags if you want the latest summary from the Congressional Research Service automatically to replace the text between the tags once it becomes available. --> <h2 id="toc25"> Status of the Legislation </h2> <p>Latest Major Action: 12/11/2007: Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.</p> <!-- Leave in the 'status' tags if you want the latest reported status from THOMAS automatically to replace the text between the tags once it becomes available. --> <h2 id="toc26"> Points in Favor </h2> <p>(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should pass!)<br /> <!-- First editor: Go ahead and take out the sentence in parentheses, and this notice! --> </p> <h2 id="toc27"> Points Against </h2> <p>(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should not pass!)<br /> <!-- First editor: Go ahead and take out the sentence in parentheses, and this notice! --> </p> 14625@http://www.washingtonwatch.com Wed, 12 Dec 2007 17:30:08 EST