Fitzgeralds Appraisal Analysis Of Fitzgerald's Proof Chart

First, I will address Fitzgerald’s proof chart. Then I will address Carraway’s appraisal report.
1. The objection on work product grounds should be sustained for Fitzgerald’s proof chart. Work product protection protects documents from disclosure if they were (1) prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial, and (2) by or for a party or a party’s representative which includes attorneys, consultants, sureties, indemnitors, insurers, and agents. The proof chart was prepared in anticipation of litigation. Gatsy retaining the attorney to represent him on this issue before the proof chart was prepared. The attorney requested the proof chart when he believed there was a strong fraud claim. The chart lists evidence that can be used to prove
Opinion work product is more difficult to obtain than fact work product. The threshold that must be met to obtain opinion work product varies by court. As a minimum starting point, we look at what is required to overcome fact work product protection. First, the document requested needs to be relevant and proportional to the needs of the case. Scott’s proof chart is relevant because it directly bears on the claim. It outlines the plaintiff’s ability to pursue the claim. The request is proportional because there is no significant cost to providing the defendant a copy. Second, the party must show a substantial need for the document in preparation for the case. It could be argued there is a substantial need. Scott’s proof chart lays out the events that occurred and evidence available. It would be extremely helpful for the plaintiff to obtain this information to successfully defend themselves. Lastly, the party must be unable to obtain the substantial equivalent by other means without undue hardship. The defendant can obtain this information without undue hardship. This information is discoverable through initial disclosures and other methods of discovery. Any resulting travel and expense are normally not considered undue hardship. As such, the objection on work product grounds should be
The objection on work product grounds will likely be denied for Carraway’s report. Nick Carraway’s report is not likely work product, but more information is needed. If Carraway’s appraisal was conducted when Jay Gatsby anticipated suing Tom Buchanan, then it is work product because the report was obtained with a realistic prospect of litigation. If Gatsby does not typically obtain appraisals on artwork, this would be further proof that the appraisal was conducted with the realistic prospect of litigation in mind. A complaint was filed less than 30 days after the appraisal which is fairly quick turnaround time. Alternatively, Gatsby obtained an appraisal to make sure had an original painting without any thought to suing Buchanan. Gatsby called Buchanan and demanded his money back before retaining a law firm to represent him. The legal dispute seems like an afterthought, and Gatsby was obtaining the appraisal in the normal course of business as an art