- 89 -
memorandum were privileged and directing petitioner to produce
the document with appropriate redactions. Petitioner complied
with the Court's order.
In its reply brief, petitioner states that "Exhibit 408-J
[the Zelisko memorandum] is protected by attorney-client
privilege and the work-product doctrine. Petitioners renew their
claim of attorney-client privilege and application of the work-
product doctrine with respect to Exhibit 408-J."
A. Attorney-Client Privilege
Our rules provide for discovery of information that is not
privileged but relevant to the subject matter involved in the
pending case. See Rule 70(b). The party opposing discovery
bears the burden of establishing that the information sought is
privileged. See Zaentz v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. 469, 475 (1979);
Branerton Corp. v. Commissioner, 64 T.C. 191, 193 (1975).
Section 7453 provides that the Court is bound by the rules
of evidence applicable in trials without a jury in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia. See Rule 143(a).
The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia "adheres to the
axiom that the attorney-client privilege must be 'strictly
confined within the narrowest possible limits consistent with the
logic of its principle.'" Linde Thomson Langworthy Kohn & Van
Dyke v. Resolution Trust Corp., 5 F.3d 1508, 1514 (D.C. Cir.
Page: Previous 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011