United States: Privilege And Work Product Doctrine: Noteworthy Developments

Last Updated: March 16 2014
Article by Adam S. Lurie, Lambrina Mathews and Salvatore Astorina

Most Read Contributor in United States, October 2018

Protection of privileged information and work product is a perennial concern, for counsel and clients alike. The attorney-client privilege enables clients to seek legal advice from counsel without fear of having their thoughts, concerns or secrets revealed to the outside world. Further, because of the privilege, clients can discuss with counsel even the most sensitive, embarrassing or, sometimes, incriminating matters—information that clients might not otherwise share—thereby enabling clients to receive more accurate, reasoned and essential advice.

If such communications (or related work product) were to end up in the hands of an opponent or prosecutor, the results could be devastating. Consequently, court decisions concerning privilege and work product can be especially important for lawyers and their clients. This article highlights some of the significant decisions of the past year concerning the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine, and practices to consider in the wake of such decisions.

Pre-Merger Privilege

The Delaware Chancery Court this past fall addressed for the first time the question of whether, in a merger governed by Delaware law, the seller retains control over its pre-closing privileged communications—and held that the privilege passes to the surviving corporation as a matter of law absent an agreement to the contrary.1

In Great Hill Equity Partners IV v. SIG Growth Equity Fund I, the seller claimed that it retained control of the privilege attaching to its pre-merger communications with counsel, which the buyer (who was suing for fraudulent inducement in connection with the merger) had discovered on computer systems acquired during the merger. The merger agreement, however, did not include any provision to that effect. Moreover, it was undisputed that the rights acquired in the merger were those set forth in the agreement and the Delaware General Corporation Law (DGCL).

Accordingly, Chancellor Leo Strine turned to the DGCL and, based on the plain meaning of section 259, held that the DGCL contained "a clear and unambiguous default rule: all privileges of the constituent corporations pass to the surviving corporation in a merger."2 Given the absence of a contractual provision to the contrary, Strine concluded that any privilege attaching to the seller's pre-closing communications with counsel had been transferred to the buyer.

He also warned that "any parties worried about facing this predicament in the future [should] use their contractual freedom...to exclude from the transferred assets the attorney-client communications they wish to retain as their own."3 In light of Great Hill, merger parties should strongly consider provisions that address the ownership of privileged pre-merger communications post-closing.

Litigation-Related Interviews

In U.S. Bank National Association v. PHL Variable Insurance, Magistrate Judge James Francis in the Southern District of New York addressed the "unsettled question" of whether the work product doctrine protects the identities of persons interviewed by an attorney (or his agent) in anticipation of litigation, and answered that question in the affirmative.4

This issue arose when the plaintiff's 30(b)(6) witness testified that counsel had conducted interviews of the defendant's former employees concerning the conduct at issue, but refused to testify further about counsel's investigations. The defendant moved to compel testimony identifying those who ordered or conducted the investigations, were contacted, or were present during any interviews, and the dates of any interviews, as well as testimony as to whether any documents had been collected from third parties.

Focusing on whether the work product doctrine may protect the identities of interviewees, the court noted the mixed authority from other jurisdictions on this issue. However, it also cited to cases in the Southern District that have observed that such disclosures "have the potential to reveal counsel's opinions, thought processes, or strategies."5 Given the plaintiff's representation that counsel's decisions as to whom to interview included "a strategic component," the court found that the interviewees' identities were protected work product.6 The other factual information sought by the defendant, however, was not deemed work product.

In light of U.S. Bank, clients should ensure that counsel drive the investigation, including determinations as to who is to be interviewed and the information to be sought from interviewees. Further, litigants should consider probing whether opposing counsel was adequately involved in any investigation, and, if not, seeking appropriate discovery.

Privilege Logs

This past year, a number of courts sanctioned parties that failed to provide adequate privilege logs. Such sanctions included court- ordered waivers of any applicable privilege or protection. A high-profile example of this hazard occurred in the defamation case brought by athletic trainer Brian McNamee against former baseball superstar Roger Clemens.

In McNamee v. Clemens, McNamee sought to compel production of all communications between Clemens, his public relations strategist and/or his sports agent, including communications involving Clemens' counsel, that Clemens had withheld based on broad assertions of privilege and work product.7 Despite being alerted to the fact that the failure to produce a privilege log violated applicable rules, Clemens did not produce a privilege log until more than a month later, and did so only after the court had ordered that the documents be produced for in camera review. Additionally, the log, when finally produced, was woefully deficient. Accordingly, the court concluded that any privilege or protection had been waived.

While the court took the added step of reviewing in camera the documents at issue (and concluded that "the vast majority" were not, in any event, privileged or protected),8 this case demonstrates that courts are willing to find waiver where an appropriate privilege log is not timely provided. Counsel and their clients would therefore be well-advised to take care in preparing privilege logs in compliance with applicable rules, keeping in mind the very real risk of waiver for failing to do so.

Underlying Materials

In Gruss v. Zwirn, the Southern District of New York addressed an issue which, it explained, had not been addressed in any precedential decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: whether voluntary disclosure to the government of privileged material waives the privilege "as to underlying documents and vis-à-vis third parties," where the disclosing party and the government enter into a confidentiality agreement like the one at issue there.9 Judge Paul Gardephe held that it does.

The defendants in Gruss had previously voluntarily disclosed to the Securities and Exchange Commission the results of an internal investigation regarding certain financial irregularities (which were attributed to the plaintiff, who then resigned, filing the instant suit). The defendants' disclosures, however, had been made pursuant to an agreement that provided that the SEC would maintain the confidentiality of the information received "'except to the extent that [it] determine[d] that disclosure is required by law or would be in furtherance of the Commission's discharge of its duties and responsibilities.'"10

Gardephe concluded that this language effectively gave the SEC the "discretion to disclose the submitted materials whenever it chooses"—and, thus, that the confidentiality agreement was "illusory."11 As a result, when the plaintiff in the instant litigation sought production of materials underlying the presentations made to the SEC—i.e., counsel's notes and summaries of the witness interviews reportedly summarized in the presentations—the court concluded that the agreement did not shield such materials from disclosure. The court added that the defendants, when making their presentations to the SEC, had "deliberately, voluntarily, and selectively" disclosed privileged communications and work product and that any privilege or protection had therefore been waived not just as to the presentations but as to any underlying materials as well.12

Gruss provides a powerful lesson to counsel negotiating confidentiality agreements with government agencies to which they contemplate disclosing privileged material. At a minimum, counsel should be cognizant of the fact that the contractual language criticized in Gruss may be viewed as gutting any promise of confidentiality.13 In addition, the case serves as a reminder that counsel and their clients should be prepared for the possibility that attorney notes and memoranda of witness interviews or investigations may not be immune from discovery where voluntary disclosures are made to the government.

FRE 502: Underutilized Tool

Despite its potential for resolving conflicts and reducing the uncertainty associated with document production, Federal Rule of Evidence 502 remains underutilized.14 One of the significant protections available to (but infrequently sought by) litigants under FRE 502 is the 502(d) order,15 whose utility may be illustrated by the case of Solis v. Bruister.16 The defendants there were found to have waived privilege and work product protection on multiple grounds (including for failure to produce a timely and adequate privilege log). However, the court, citing FRE 502(d), stated that the defendants' waiver was limited to the case at bar and, thus, that the compelled disclosure would not effect a waiver in "any other federal, state, administrative, or other proceeding."17

While parties in a similar predicament should request the same protection, litigants may seek a 502(d) order in other situations. For instance, counsel should consider at the outset of litigation whether it would be beneficial to obtain a 502(d) order limiting the scope of any waiver that may result from disclosure of privileged information (due to inadvertence or otherwise) during the course of document production.

Conclusion

The above decisions underscore the consequence of protecting privilege and work product. Parties and counsel who find themselves in situations such as those in Great Hill, Clemens and Gruss, for instance, can only hope that there are no "smoking guns" in the materials that they are required to produce.

Footnotes

1. Great Hill Equity Partners IV v. SIG Growth Equity Fund I, 80 A.3d 155, 159 (Del. Ch. 2013).

2. Id. at 159 (emphasis in original).

3. Id. at 161.

4. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n. v. PHL Variable Ins., Nos. 12 Civ. 6811, 13 Civ. 1580, 2013 WL 5495542, at *9-10 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2013).

5. Id. at *9.

6. Id. at *10.

7. McNamee v. Clemens, No. 09 CV 1647, 2013 WL 6572899, at *1, 8 n.14 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 18, 2013).

8. Id. at *4.

9. Gruss v. Zwirn, No. 09 Civ 6441, 2013 WL 3481350, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. July 10, 2013).

10. Id. at *1-2.

11. Id.

12. Id. at *13.

13. It should also be noted that the form confidentiality agreement in the SEC Enforcement Manual available online at the time this article was submitted for print (the "SEC Manual") contains virtually identical language. See SEC Enforcem't Man. §4.3.1 (2013). However, the SEC Manual also indicates that parties producing privileged materials to the SEC or Department of Justice may be deemed to have waived any privilege attaching to such disclosures, even where made pursuant to a confidentiality agreement. Id.

14. See, e.g., Swift Spindrift, Ltd. v. Alvada Ins., No. 09 Civ. 9342, 2013 WL 3815970, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. July 24, 2013) ("remarkably few lawyers seem to be aware of the Rule's existence despite its enactment nearly five years ago"). Indeed, a survey of publicly available federal court decisions issued between Sept. 19, 2008 (FRE 502's effective date) and Dec. 31, 2013, reveals a total of approximately 400 decisions citing to FRE 502, including little more than 100 decisions issued in 2013. Further, with regard to FRE 502(d), for instance (discussed infra), fewer than 90 decisions were located and, of the 22 such decisions issued in 2013, only six cases referenced the entry of a 502(d) order.

15. "A federal court may order that the privilege or protection is not waived by disclosure connected with the litigation pending before the court—in which event the disclosure is also not a waiver in any other federal or state proceeding." Fed. R. Evid. 502(d).

16. Solis v. Bruister, Nos. 4:10-cv-77-DPJ-FKB, -95-DBJ-FKB, 2013 WL 493374 (S.D. Miss. Jan. 22, 2013).

17. Id. at *5.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions