Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

These interlocutory appeals were from a district court order that, inter alia, compelled a law firm (Mintz Levin) to produce documents relating to a fraud allegedly committed by David Gorski in his operation of Legion Construction, Inc. in order to qualify for and obtain government contracts. Gorski and Legion appealed the portion of the order that required attorney-client privileged documents connected with Mintz Levin’s representation of Legion to be produced under the crime-fraud exception. The government cross-appealed the portion of the district court decision to exclude communications between Gorski and his personal attorney from the production order. The First Circuit (1) dismissed Gorski’s appeal for want of appellate jurisdiction, holding that the Court did not have jurisdiction over Gorski’s appeal but did have jurisdiction over Legion’s appeal and the government’s cross-appeal; (2) affirmed the production order as to Mintz Levin, holding that a prima facie case for the crime-fraud exception had been made; and (3) vacated the district court’s decision to exclude Gorski’s communications with his personal attorney from the production order, holding that the district court employed incorrect legal reasoning with regard to these documents. View "United States v. Gorski" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed this lawsuit against two Town of Wareham police officers, the police chief, and the Town, claiming (1) the officers arrested him without probable cause and used excessive force in pushing him into a police vehicle while trying to disperse an unruly crowd, and (2) the police chief and Town were liable because they had known of, or recklessly disregarded, prior false arrests and use of excessive force by the arresting officers and other officers in the police department. The district court bifurcated the trial, requiring Plaintiff to first try his claims against the individual officers. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the officers, and thereafter, the district court dismissed the claims against the Town and its police chief. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err (1) in excluding all prior complaints against one of the officers and in bifurcating the trial; (2) in denying Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial; and (3) in denying Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend his complaint three years after he filed his initial complaint. View "Lund v. Henderson" on Justia Law