Also known as: reasonably anticipate litigation · reasonably anticipated litigation · anticipation of litigation
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
The point at which a party reasonably expects litigation to ensue. This expectation shields materials prepared because of that expectation from routine discovery under the work product doctrine.
Raven Logistics faces a collision involving one of its trucks. Its lawyer immediately retains SafeRoad Consulting to prepare telematics summaries and reconstruction reports. Carla later sues and seeks those materials. The court sustains the work product objection because the consultant created the documents after the incident at counsel's direction.
Union Resource retains Michael to advise on potential groundwater litigation. Point Eco generates draft sampling reports at Michael's request. Clayton seeks the drafts in discovery. The materials receive work product protection because they were prepared in anticipation of litigation rather than for ordinary business purposes.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Ravi Reddy's company anticipates suit after a product failure. Counsel interviews potential witnesses and prepares memoranda summarizing those interviews. The opposing party moves to compel the memos. The court denies the motion absent a showing of necessity because the memoranda reflect preparations made in anticipation of litigation.
Redwood Bank receives regulatory inquiries about its disclosures. Outside counsel directs the compliance department to prepare risk memoranda and slide decks. Investors later sue and seek those materials. The court sustains the work product objection because the documents were prepared at counsel's direction in anticipation of litigation.
Rocky Mountain Mining prepares an internal accident report after a workplace injury. The report follows company policy but is created after the incident that prompts litigation fears. A plaintiff seeks the report as a business record. The court excludes it from the business records exception because the primary purpose was anticipation of litigation rather than ordinary operations.
Riverside Healthcare experiences an adverse patient event. The risk manager works with defense counsel to create dashboards and summaries. Maria sues for malpractice and moves to compel the materials. The court denies the motion because the documents qualify as work product prepared in anticipation of litigation absent any substantial need showing.
It arises when a party has a concrete basis for fearing a specific lawsuit that goes beyond a general concern over litigation or the mere existence of a dispute. Notice of an intent to file a claim or a credible threat of suit typically triggers the duty.
Supporting sources
Documents prepared in the ordinary course of business or pursuant to routine institutional requirements fall outside work product protection even if litigation is anticipated at the time of creation. The key inquiry is whether the document would have been created in substantially the same form absent the litigation threat.
Supporting sources
Counsel's direction immediately after a litigation threat, combined with confidential labeling and restricted storage, supports a finding that materials were prepared because of anticipated litigation. Routine checklists used for years in non-litigated matters do not automatically defeat protection when counsel oversight changes the purpose.
Supporting sources
Yes. Materials prepared after an adverse event but before formal suit can still qualify as work product when created because of expected litigation. Timing relative to the complaint filing is not dispositive. The purpose of creation controls.
Supporting sources
…cloak of this privilege does not extend to information which an attorney secures from a witness while acting for his client in anticipation of litigation. Nor does this privilege concern the memoranda, briefs, communications and other writings prepared by counsel for his own use in prosecuting his client’s case; and it is equally unrelated…