Opinion · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

SANDRA v. SOUTH BERWYN SCHOOL DIST. 100, 310 Fed.Appx. 927 (7th Cir. 2009)

SANDRA T.E., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. S. BERWYN SCHOOLDISTRICT 100, Defendant-Appellant, & Sidley Austin LLP, Appellant., 310 F. App'x 927 (7th Cir. 2009)

Type
Opinion
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
2009-02-25
Topic
general

SANDRA v. SOUTH BERWYN SCHOOL DIST. 100, 310 Fed.Appx. 927 (7th Cir. 2009) SANDRA T.E., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. SOUTH BERWYN SCHOOLDISTRICT 100, Defendant-Appellant, and Sidley Austin LLP, Appellant. No. 08-3344.United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.Argued February 24, 2009. Decided February 25, 2009. [EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed SANDRA v. SOUTH BERWYN SCHOOL DIST. 100, 310 Fed.Appx. 927 (7th Cir. 2009). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

SANDRA v. SOUTH BERWYN SCHOOL DIST. 100,310 Fed.Appx. 927(7th Cir. 2009)
SANDRA T.E., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. SOUTH BERWYN SCHOOL
DISTRICT 100, Defendant-Appellant, and Sidley Austin LLP, Appellant.
No. 08-3344.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Argued February 24, 2009.
Decided February 25, 2009.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 05 CV 473. William J. Hibbler, Judge.
Jonathan I. Loevy, Attorney, Samantha Liskow, Loevy Loevy, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Michael Doss, Attorney, Sidley Austin, Chicago, IL, for Appellant.

Darcy L. Proctor, Attorney, Ancel, Glink, Diamond, Bush, Dicianni Krafthefer, P.C., Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge, DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge, DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge.
ORDER
Appellants Sidley Austin LLP and South Berwyn School District 100 appeal from an order requiring Sidley to disclose notes and memoranda from interviews of variousPage 928school-district employees and third-party witnesses conducted as part of an internal investigation the School Board retained Sidley to perform. The appeal was argued on February 24, 2009, and plaintiffs-appellees have asked us to decide it quickly to assist their preparations for an August 2009 trial.

We conclude that the materials covered by the district court's order are protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine. Accordingly, we REVERSE the district court's order. An opinion will follow.
  1. [EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] ↩