Source: http://attorneyclientprivilege.mcguirewoods.com/chapter.aspx?ch=42
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 12:52:41+00:00

Document:
"Distinguishing Between "Facts" and Lawyers' "Opinions"
Although the attorney-client privilege does not protect historical facts, any facts "created" during or in anticipation of litigation can present a difficult analysis.
In Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Merck & Co., Case No. 5:13-cv-04057-BLF, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3263 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2016), the court handling a patent case assessed defendant's opinion work product claim for the results of an experiment a scientist undertook with a protocol provided by its subsidiary's scientist (and also its lawyer). Plaintiff argued that "it seeks discovery 'only into the scientific facts surrounding the development of the protocol,'" rather than defendant's subsidiary's scientist/lawyer's "legal opinions, thought processes or legal explanations for his actions regarding the protocol." Id. At *12-13 (internal citation omitted). But the court denied plaintiff's discovery request, concluding that "adjustments [the scientist/lawyer] made to the protocol would necessarily have been done in consideration of its purpose in countering [the plaintiff's] litigation position." Id. At *13. The court then drove the point home again: "the scientific instruction necessarily reflects the attorney's strategic thinking about issues likely to arise down the road in litigation . . . [and the results therefore] remain protected opinion work product because the non-legal and legal thinking are inextricably intertwined in service of the litigation." Id. At *14-15.
Lawyers should be prepared to rebut an adversary's argument that it merely seeks "facts" that are created in connection with litigation.
"Does the Opinion Work Product Doctrine Protect the Identity of Documents a Litigant Obtains from a Third Party?"
Many courts extend opinion work product protection to a lawyer's selection of intrinsically unprotected documents used to prepare a deponent, the identity of witnesses important enough to interview, etc. This approach is frequently called the Sporck doctrine, after a Third Circuit case. Sporck v. Peil, 759 F.2d 312, 315 (3d Cir. 1985).
In McClurg v. Mallinckrodt, Inc., No. 4:12-CV-00361-AGF, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29230 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 8, 2016), defendants' lawyers collected documents from Missouri's Historical Society and from the government through FOIA requests. Plaintiff filed discovery requests seeking the identity of those documents. The court concluded that the documents defendants had obtained from the Historical Society were not responsive. After reminding defendants that they must produce all responsive documents they had obtained from any source, the court also denied plaintiffs' request to identify the specific documents defendant had obtained through FOIA — concluding that forcing defendants to re-produce those documents as a "supplemental production" would "reveal their opinion work product." Id. At *12.
Lawyers should keep in mind that their selection of even intrinsically unprotected documents can reflect their opinion, thus justifying withholding those documents' identity. However the Sporck doctrine only protects the documents' identity — and applies only if the adversary also has the documents themselves.
Plaintiffs sometimes try to generate a litigation "side show" by challenging corporate defendants' steps in preparing their discovery responses. Courts' reactions to such efforts highlight disagreements about the work product doctrine's application in that context.
In Estate of Jaquez v. City of New York, No. 10 Civ. 2881 (KBF), 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148717 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2014), Judge Forrest addressed plaintiff's effort to learn what deposition transcripts a defense witness had reviewed before testifying. The court acknowledged that a lawyer's "general selection of materials to be covered during a preparation session are [sic] usually protected from an omnibus request for disclosure." Id. at *4. However, the court held that the plaintiff could ask a witness whether his or her recollection "was refreshed by a specific document shown during the preparation — and to identify such a document." Id. at *5. The court then added another more subtle principle — holding that a defense lawyer who had "shared the substance" of another witness's testimony with a deponent could not avoid disclosure under this refreshment rule "simply by reading or summarizing it to the witness instead of having the witness read it him or herself." Id. at *8. As the court bluntly put it "in for a penny, in for a pound." Id.
If a lawyer preparing a witness simply discusses historical facts (without attributing them to another deposition witness), it is difficult to imagine how this process would work. Next week's Privilege Point addresses two other decisions issued just a few days later, also focusing on what could be called "discovery about discovery."
"In Some Situations, Facts Can Deserve Work Product Protection"
The attorney-client privilege protects only communications, not historical facts. But as in so many other areas, the work product doctrine presents a more complicated picture.
In United States v. J-M Manufacturing Co., Civ. A. No. 11-cv-01691-MSK-MJW, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14800 (D. Colo. Feb. 4, 2013), the court dealt with the results of defendant's tests conducted on PVC plastic pipe. The court acknowledged that "[t]est results, of themselves, simply reflect matters of historical fact." Id. At *11-12. However, the court also explained that "[t]he selection of a particular test methodology or testing sample or set of samples to test could . . . Permit one to draw inferences as to the reasons why one option was selected over another; those inferences, in turn, could reveal attorney opinions, theories, or strategies." Id. At *12. The court further explained that "[t]his, in turn, throws new light on the purely 'factual' test results" – thus justifying withholding of the results as work product. Id.
Unlike the attorney-client privilege, the work product can protect such disparate things as attorney-client communications, accident scene photographs, transcripts of public meetings, a pile of newspaper clippings, and even facts.
"Court Applies the Sporck Doctrine"
The work product doctrine involves many more varied and practical aspects than the attorney-client privilege. Among other things, heightened opinion work product protection can sometimes protect lawyers' selection of intrinsically unprotected documents, witnesses, etc. -- if the adversary has equal access to them, and if the selection would reveal the lawyers' litigation strategies. Many courts call this the Sporck doctrine. Sporck v. Peil, 759 F.2d 312, 315 (3d Cir. 1985).
In Boston Scientific Corp. v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp., Civ. A. No. 16-275-SLR-SRF, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178515 (D. Del. Dec. 27, 2016), defendant proposed a protective order provision requiring the parties to identify any documents they planned to share with foreign lawyers. The court denied defendant's proposal, citing Sporck in concluding that "[t]he procedure described in [defendant's protective order provision] would reveal which documents are important to Plaintiffs, and therefore disclose information that is considered work product." Id. at *5-6.
Lawyers should be on the lookout for their adversaries' seemingly innocuous discovery of, or other references to, intrinsically unprotected documents, witnesses, etc. – if the discovery or other reference might reveal the lawyers' opinions or litigation strategies.
Last week's Privilege Point described a court's complicated approach to lawyers' deposition preparation sessions and adversaries' efforts to determine if the preparation refreshed a witness's recollection. That court acknowledged that the work product doctrine generally protects lawyers' "selection of materials to be covered during a preparation session." Estate of Jaquez v. City of New York, No. 10 Civ. 2881 (KBF), 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148717, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2014).
Three days later, however, a North Carolina state court dealt with an adversary's interrogatory asking that litigants "identify all documents that [they] reviewed and/or relied upon in responding to the . . . interrogatories." Nat’l Fin. Partners Corp. v. Ray, 2014 NCBC 49 ¶ 41 (N.C. Super. Ct. Oct. 13, 2014). The court held that "in merely seeking identification of documents, [the interrogatory] requests only factual information" that did not deserve protection under either the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. Id. ¶ 43. A week after that, a federal court addressed defendant Winn-Dixie's argument that the attorney-client privilege protected its "methods of preparing for deposition." Pate v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., Civ. A. No. CV213-166, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148764, at *13 (S.D. Ga. Oct. 20, 2014). Although concluding that it needed more information, the court warned that "[b]ecause preparation for deposition often requires investigating numerous sources of information, it is unlikely that all efforts to prepare for the deposition in this case constitute privileged communications." Id.
Although courts disagree about both the attorney-client privilege's and the work product doctrine's application to the process of preparing discovery responses, companies should not assume that their lawyers' involvement in those efforts automatically assures either protection.
"Does the Work Product Doctrine Protect the Identity of Documents a Witness Reviews Before Testifying?"
Under what is commonly called the Sporck doctrine, the opinion work product doctrine can sometimes protect the identity of certain documents that do not themselves deserve intrinsic privilege or work product protection, as long as the adversary also has the documents and the identity could reflect a lawyer's opinion. Sporck v. Peil, 759 F.2d 312 (3d Cir. 1985).
Courts disagree about the Sporck doctrine's application to documents a witness reviews before testifying at a deposition. Some courts find that those documents' identity deserves work product protection, while other courts reject that concept. In In re Pradaxa (Dabigatran Etexilate) Products Liability Litigation, No. 3:12-md-02385-DRH-SCW, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59164 (S.D. Ill. Apr. 25, 2013) (not for publication), the court tried to thread the needle. The court held that deposition witnesses had to disclose which documents they reviewed before testifying, but did not have to disclose which documents their lawyers had selected.
Lawyers trying to maximize opinion work product protection should see if the pertinent court applies the Sporck doctrine in this setting.
(holding that a plaintiff did not have to identify prospective clients; "The Court here declines to address whether the identities or names of potential clients who contacted Plaintiff's counsel about potential representation of their own possible discrimination claims, allegedly after hearing about Plaintiff's claims against Defendant, are themselves privileged information or otherwise protected from disclosure. As the Court previously pointed out to the parties, caselaw in this District suggests that client identities are not protected by the attorney-client privilege. However, given the concerns raised by Plaintiff's counsel and the fact that the purpose of the privilege log can be satisfied in this case without identifying the clients or potential clients, the Court will not require the inclusion of the names of the potential clients in the privilege log. Based upon the other information provided in Plaintiff's privilege log, Defendant can adequately assess the claim of privilege without the potential clients' name.").
"Does the Work Product Doctrine Protect the Identity of Witnesses a Lawyer Chooses to Interview?"
Litigants obviously must identify all witnesses with potentially relevant knowledge about litigated issues. But can litigants claim work product protection for the identity of the subset of those witnesses that their lawyers choose to interview?
As with so many other work product issues, courts disagree. In United States v. All Assets Held at Bank Julius Baer & Co., the court ultimately held that the work product doctrine protected such interviewees' identities, because forcing disclosure of their identities would reveal how the litigant and his lawyer "choose to prepare their case." Civ. A. No. 04-798 (PLF/GMH), 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147894, at *11 (D.D.C. Sept. 13, 2017) (citation omitted). The court acknowledged that the question "remains unsettled." Id. at *7. And in a refreshing moment of candor, the court explained that "[i]ndeed, in this Court alone, there is a partial split among its members over whether the names of individuals that a party has interviewed in preparation for litigation [are] protected under work-product privilege." Id. at *7-8.
Corporate litigants may not know how the work product doctrine will apply to their lawyers' activities until they know what court will handle their case – and even what judge will hear their case.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.