Skip to main content

Pettersen v. Volcano Corporation

E.D.N.Y.October 27, 2020No. 2:18-cv-03021
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Nature of Suit — the legal category of the dispute
442 Civil Rights: Jobs
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Unknown
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Breach of Contract

Outcome

The appellate court affirmed in part and vacated in part the trial court's discovery order requiring Attorney Hansen to appear for deposition and produce documents related to an SEC inquiry. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings regarding privilege assertions.

What This Ruling Means

**Pettersen v. Volcano Corporation: Court Rules on Attorney Records in Employment Case** This case involved a dispute over whether an attorney had to turn over documents and testify in an employment lawsuit. The case appears to involve a breach of contract claim between an employee and their employer, Toll Brothers, Inc. During the legal process, one side wanted Attorney Hansen to provide documents and give testimony (called a deposition) related to an SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) investigation. The appeals court made a split decision. They agreed with part of the lower court's order requiring the attorney to appear and produce some documents, but they disagreed with other parts. The court sent the case back to the trial judge to make new decisions about which documents the attorney could keep private under attorney-client privilege rules. **Why This Matters for Workers:** This ruling shows how complex employment lawsuits can become when they involve multiple investigations or regulatory matters. For workers considering legal action, it demonstrates that courts carefully balance the need for evidence against protecting confidential attorney communications. While this specific case dealt with procedural issues rather than the main employment dispute, it highlights how employment cases can involve various government agencies and legal protections that may affect what information becomes available during litigation.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.