context: That holding applies here a fortiori. Here, all of tire documents that defense counsel has provided its witnesses to review in preparation for their depositions already have been produced to Plaintiffs or are otherwise publicly available. Plaintiffs cannot establish that have a "substantial need" to know which documents counsel used to prepare the witnesses, or that identification is "necessary in the interests of justice." Indeed, in the few depositions to this point, Plaintiffs already have marked hundreds of produced 'documents as exhibits. There is no compelling need for them to see which documents defense counsel think are important.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 759 F.2d 318, 318
citation_a.parenthetical: "Rule 612 should never implicate an attorney's selection, in preparation for a witness' deposition, of a group of documents that he believes critical to a case,"
citation_a.sentence: See Sporck, 759 F.2d at 318 (“Rule 612 should never implicate an attorney’s selection, in preparation for a witness’ deposition, of a group of documents that he believes critical to a case,”); see also Hanover Ins., 304 F.R.D. at 500 (holding that requesting party “ha[d] not met its burden” to prove that justice required disclosure of compilation under Rule 612); af.
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 304 F.R.D. 500, 500
citation_b.parenthetical: holding that requesting party "ha[d] not met its burden" to prove that justice required disclosure of compilation under Rule 612
citation_b.sentence: See Sporck, 759 F.2d at 318 (“Rule 612 should never implicate an attorney’s selection, in preparation for a witness’ deposition, of a group of documents that he believes critical to a case,”); see also Hanover Ins., 304 F.R.D. at 500 (holding that requesting party “ha[d] not met its burden” to prove that justice required disclosure of compilation under Rule 612); af.