How to write a legal issue 1. Identify the relevant law or laws

Please follow these instructions specifically and follow the rubric provided:
How to write a legal issue
1. Identify the relevant law or laws
All legal issues must involve a law, which can be either a constitutional provision, statute, regulation, common law cause of action, or executive action. Many factual scenarios involve more than one law.
2. Identify the elements of the law
Language of the law
Judicially crafted tests or rules
3. Identify the facts relevant to the rule of law
4. Write the legal issue using the following formula or a similar formula
Whether [insert the law], which requires/prohibits [insert the elements of the law] is violated when [insert relevant facts], (if necessary add) even when [insert relevant defenses or exceptions]?
FOR EXAMPLE:
Matal v. Tam was decided based on the First Amendment and the Lanham Act
1. Relevant laws
1st Amendment – Congress shall make no law … “abridging the freedom of speech”
Lanham Act – prohibits the registration of a trademark “which may disparage … persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute.”
2. Relevant elements
1st A – Content-based distinctions are not permitted (from Texas v. Johnson)
Lanham Act – “may disparage . . . persons . . . beliefs or national symbols”
3. Relevant facts
Musicians were denied registration of a trademark for their band name, The Slants, because it was determined by the government to be disparaging.
4. Legal Issue:
Whether the First Amendment, which prohibits content-based speech restrictions, is violated when trademark registration is denied for a name that the government determined was disparaging?
Allen v Pasha Fashion Ltd, 2019 NY Slip Op 33687[U] [Sup Ct, NY County 2019)
Omar Allen, the plaintiff, commenced this action . . . seeking to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for work performed for defendant Pasha Fashion Ltd. (“Pasha”) and defendant Mohamed Elsayad (“Elsayad”) individually. In this motion, plaintiff seeks an order, pursuant to CPLR 3124,2 compelling Pasha and Elsayad 1) to produce certain discovery which has been withheld as privileged; 2) to produce underlying documents upon which [**2] defendants or their counsel relied in creating the discovery demanded; and 3) for such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND:
Plaintiff was employed by Pasha, a wholesale and retail men’s clothing store, from approximately 2010 until May 2017. Elsayad was a principal, officer, president, director, and/or owner of Pasha. From approximately 2010 through 2013, plaintiff was paid by commission only.
On or about July 21, 2017, plaintiff served a demand on Pasha and Elsayad for documents relevant to, inter alia, the dates and hours plaintiff worked. In November 2017, Pasha and Elsayad produced documents for plaintiff’s inspection and copying.
In December 2018, plaintiff’s counsel was reviewing documents in preparation for the deposition of Elsayad when she observed two pages of a 13 page notebook (“the notebook”) exchanged by prior counsel for Pasha and Elsayad which appeared to be attorney work product. Counsel stopped reading and, at Elsayad’s deposition on December 10, 2018, she advised El Nemr, incoming counsel for Pasha and Elsayad, that, although the last two pages of the notebook appeared to be attorney work product, the first 11 pages (“the 11 pages”) did not appear to be. Plaintiff’s attorney told counsel for Pasha and [**4] Elsayad that she believed that the 11 pages were documents relating to “[p]laintiff’s dates worked and wages paid, such as calendars with notations about pay, and [p]laintiff’s W-2 forms-information that is highly relevant to [p]laintiff’s wage and hour claims.”
At a compliance conference on June 27, 2019, the parties entered into a so-ordered stipulation filed July 1, 2019 pursuant to which Pasha agreed to “produce [a] privilege log by 7/24/19.” The privilege log exchanged by El Nemr, dated July 24, 2019, represents that the 11 pages constituted a “[c]ommunication with counsel containing information prepared by or on behalf of an attorney in preparation of litigation” and that the materials were protected by attorney-client privilege and as attorney work product.
Plaintiff now moves, pursuant to CPLR 3124, compelling Pasha and Elsayad 1) to produce certain pages from the notebook which have been withheld as privileged; 2) to produce underlying documents upon which defendants or their counsel relied in creating the notebook; and 3) for such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
In support of the motion, plaintiff asserts that Pasha and Elsayad must produce the 11 pages of the notebook or the documents upon which those pages were based. Plaintiff claims that Pasha and Elsayad failed to establish that the 11 pages of the notebook are protected by the attorney work product privilege and that, even if they were, they would still be discoverable because he has a substantial need to obtain them and could not get them elsewhere. He further asserts that the 11 pages are not protected by the attorney-client privilege since they are not of a legal character and relate solely to the underlying facts of the claim.
In an affidavit in opposition to the motion, Elsayad states that his prior attorney asked him to write the documents which are in the notebook and that that attorney’s handwriting is also in the notebook. In opposition to the motion, Pasha and Elsayad argue that all of the 11 pages except plaintiff’s W-2 forms are protected by the attorney-client and work product privileges. They maintain that the 11 pages (except the W-2s) are protected by the attorney-client and work product privileges because Elsayad’s prior attorney asked him to write the documents while this action was pending. .
LEGAL CONCLUSIONS:
The CPLR establishes three Categories of protected materials, also supported by policy considerations: privileged matter, absolutely immune from discovery (CPLR 3101 [b]); attorney’s work product, also absolutely immune (CPLR 3101 [c]); and trial preparation materials, which are subject to disclosure only on a [**6] showing of substantial need and undue hardship in obtaining the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means (CPLR 3101 [d] [2]).
Obvious tension exists between the policy favoring full disclosure and the policy permitting parties to withhold relevant evidence. Consequently, the burden of establishing any right to protection is on the party asserting it; the protection claimed must be narrowly construed; and its application must be consistent with the purposes underlying the immunity.
The attorney-client privilege shields from disclosure any confidential communications between an attorney and his or her client made for the purpose of obtaining or facilitating legal advice in the course of a professional relationship (see CPLR 4503 [a] [1]). The oldest among the common-law evidentiary privileges, the attorney-client privilege “fosters the open dialogue between lawyer and client that is deemed essential to effective representation” [Spectrum Sys., 78 NY2d at 377]). “It exists to ensure that one seeking legal advice will be able to confide fully and freely in his attorney, secure in the knowledge that his confidences will not later be exposed to public view to his embarrassment or legal detriment” (Matter of Priest v Hennessy, 51 NY2d 62, 67, 409 N.E.2d 983, 431 N.Y.S.2d 511 [1980]).
Because the privilege shields from disclosure pertinent information and therefore “constitutes an ‘obstacle’ to the truth-finding process,” it must be narrowly construed (Matter of Jacqueline F., 47 NY2d 215, 219, 391 N.E.2d 967, 417 N.Y.S.2d 884 [1979]; see Spectrum. 78 NY2d at 377). The party asserting [*9] the privilege bears the burden of establishing its entitlement to protection by showing that the communication at issue was between an attorney and a client “for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of legal advice or services, in the course of a professional relationship,” that the communication is predominantly of a legal character, that the communication was confidential and that the privilege was not waived (Rossi v Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 73 NY2d 588,593-594, 540 N.E.2d 703, 542 N.Y.S.2d 508 [1989]).
[**7] Even a cursory review of the notebook reveals that the entries therein consist of dates on which plaintiff worked and calculations regarding how much he earned. Since these notations are clearly not of a predominantly legal character, Pasha and Elsayad fail to meet their burden of establishing that the 11 pages are protected by the attorney-client privilege.
Additionally, the privilege is limited to communications between an attorney and a client and not underlying facts. Spectrum Sys., 78 NY2d at 377. Thus, even though Elsayad may have written the 11 pages (except for the W-2s) at the direction of his attorney, the portions of the notebook which he wrote are not protected by the privilege, especially since there is no indication that the attorney assisted Elsayad in writing the same.
Work Product [*10] Privilege
“[A]ttorney work product applies only to documents prepared by counsel acting as such, and to materials uniquely the product of a lawyer’s learning and professional skills, such as those reflecting an attorney’s legal research, analysis, conclusions, legal theory or strategy” Venture v Preferred Mut. Ins. Co., 153 AD3d 1155, 1159, 61 N.Y.S.3d 210 (1st Dept 2017) (citation omitted). Since it is apparent that the notations made by Elsayad do not fall into any of the foregoing categories, Pasha and Elsayad have failed to establish that the 11 pages are protected by the attorney work product doctrine.
Material Prepared For Litigation
Pasha and Elsayad further assert that the 11 pages are privileged since they were prepared for the purpose of litigation. Materials prepared for trial enjoy the “conditional or qualified privilege protections of CPLR 3101(d)(2).” Markel v Pure Power Boot Camp, 171 AD3d 28, 31, 96 N.Y.S.3d 187 (1st Dept 2019). “Materials prepared in anticipation of litigation and preparation for trial may be [**8] obtained only upon a showing that the requesting party has a ‘substantial need’ for them in preparation of the case and that without ‘undue hardship’ the requesting party is unable to obtain the substantial equivalent by other means (CPLR 3101[d][2]; Forman v Henkin, 30 NY3d 656, 661-662, 70 N.Y.S.3d 157, 93 N.E.3d 882 [2018]). Markel, 171 AD3d at 31.
Here, Elsayad asserts in his affidavit in opposition to the motion that his attorney asked him to write the 11 pages. However, he does not specifically state that the attorney asked him to write the 11 pages in anticipation of litigation or in preparation for trial. However, even assuming, arguendo, that he established that he wrote the 11 pages for one of those purposes, plaintiff has established that he has a substantial need for the disclosure of the 11 pages in order to prove that he was not paid the wages to which he was entitled.
Therefore, in light of the foregoing, it is hereby:
ORDERED that plaintiff Omar Allen’s motion is granted in all respects; and it is further
ORDERED that within 20 days after this order is uploaded to NYSCEF, defendants Pasha Fashion Ltd. d/b/a Pasha Fashion and Mohamed Elsayad are to provide plaintiff with the portions of the notebook filed under seal as NYSCEF document number 39, as well as all documents upon which Elsayad relied in drafting those portions of the notebook; and it is further
[**9] ORDERED that if no documents exist upon which Elsayad relied in drafting those portions of the notebook, then Elsayad is to provide an affidavit to that effect within the same 20-day period; and it is further
Criteria Ratings Pts
Procedural history
view longer descriiption
0.5 pts
Full Marks
0 pts
No Marks
/ 0.5 pts
Facts
view longer descriiption
1 pts
Full Marks
0.5 pts
Accurate, but not generic or too long
0 pts
No Marks
/ 1 pts
Issue
view longer descriiption
1.5 pts
Full Marks
1 pts
Partial credit
Accurate, but not generic or does not include proper facts.
0 pts
No Marks
/ 1.5 pts
Answer
view longer descriiption
0.5 pts
Full Marks
0 pts
No Marks
/ 0.5 pts
Reason
view longer descriiption
1.5 pts
Full Marks
0 pts
No Marks
/ 1.5 pts