- 16 -
Hyman memorandum. The statements about matters of fact presented
in the redacted memorandum are identical to those presented in
the unredacted Hyman memorandum. Petitioners have the redacted
version of the Hyman memorandum, and so we conclude that
petitioners are in possession of the fact-based work product. We
further conclude that, as to the legal strategies and opinions,
the redacted version of the Hyman memorandum and respondent’s
summary of the unredacted version of the Hyman memorandum (supra
notes 2, 3, and 7) taken together provide a fair representation
of the legal strategies and opinions in the unredacted version of
the Hyman memorandum. Because (1) petitioners were provided with
a fair representation of the unredacted legal strategies and
opinions, and (2) the redacted portions would not impact the
outcome of petitioners’ motions under sections 7430 and 6673 in
the instant case, we conclude that petitioners do not have a
compelling need to discover this opinion work product;
petitioners’ desire to discover the unredacted version of the
Hyman memorandum is outweighed by the protection afforded by the
privacy privilege under the work product doctrine.
The Welhaf memorandum presents statements about matters of
fact that are substantially similar to those presented in the
redacted version of the Hyman memorandum. Because petitioners
are already in possession of the equivalent fact-based work
product (in the form of the redacted version of the Hyman
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007