- Acumen Powered by Robins Kaplan LLP™
- Affirmative Recovery
- American Indian Law and Policy
- Antitrust and Trade Regulation
- Appellate Advocacy and Guidance
- Business Litigation
- Civil Rights and Police Misconduct
- Class Action Litigation
- Commercial/Project Finance and Real Estate
- Corporate Governance and Special Situations
- Corporate Restructuring and Bankruptcy
- Domestic and International Arbitration
- Health Care Litigation
- Insurance and Catastrophic Loss
- Intellectual Property and Technology Litigation
- Mass Tort Attorneys
- Medical Malpractice Attorneys
- Personal Injury Attorneys
- Telecommunications Litigation and Arbitration
- Wealth Planning, Administration, and Disputes
Acumen Powered by Robins Kaplan LLPTM
Ediscovery, Applied Science and Economics, and Litigation Support Solutions
-
October 21, 2021Oren Langer Named New York Managing Partner
-
October 19, 2021Three Robins Kaplan Partners Selected to Receive 2021 Minnesota Icon Award
-
October 18, 2021Women's Leadership Award Created in Memory of Hollis Salzman
-
October 28, 2021From Riches to Rags, a Story of a Damaged Nonprofit
-
October 29, 2021Eighth Circuit Judicial Conference
-
October 30, 2021Children’s Theatre Company 2021 Curtain Call Ball
-
October 25, 2021Summary of the Trial Decision in Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc.
-
Fall 2021Are All Fiduciaries Created Equal?
-
Fall 2021Context Matters: Fiduciaries and the Rule Against Self-Dealing
-
October 20, 2021Financial Daily Dose 10.20.2021 | Top Story: Credit Suisse Fined $475M Over Mozambique Bribery Scandal
-
October 20, 2021The Robins Kaplan Privacy Pulse | Ransomware Attack Targets Sinclair Broadcast Group
-
October 19, 2021Financial Daily Dose 10.19.2021 | Top Story: SEC Issues Long-Awaited Report on Meme Stock Craze
Find additional firm contact information for press inquiries.
Find resources to help navigate legal and business complexities.
The 9th Circ.'s Rule 6(e) Test For Private Antitrust Cases
October 20, 2015
Law360, NEW YORK, October 9, 2015—In In re Optical Disk Drive Antitrust Litigation ("ODD"),[1] the Ninth Circuit recently clarified when materials created as part of a criminal government investigation should be barred from disclosure in civil litigation under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e). While over half of the federal circuits that have analyzed the issue coalesced behind the fact-intensive "effect test" (described herein), the Ninth Circuit decisively announced in ODD that it would not endorse that test. Instead, the Ninth Circuit created a new, ostensibly straightforward, approach to determine whether materials are protected under Rule 6(e).
All Content © 2003‐2015, Portfolio Media, Inc.
The articles on our website include some of the publications and papers authored by our attorneys, both before and after they joined our firm. The content of these articles should not be taken as legal advice. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or official position of Robins Kaplan LLP.
Related Professionals
Michelle Zolnoski
Related Publications
Related News
If you are interested in having us represent you, you should call us so we can determine whether the matter is one for which we are willing or able to accept professional responsibility. We will not make this determination by e-mail communication. The telephone numbers and addresses for our offices are listed on this page. We reserve the right to decline any representation. We may be required to decline representation if it would create a conflict of interest with our other clients.
By accepting these terms, you are confirming that you have read and understood this important notice.