Opinion ID: 6332179
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Clear and indisputable right to relief

Text: To obtain mandamus relief, KDMC must show that its right to relief is “clear and indisputable.” Cheney, 542 U.S. at 381 (citation omitted). Below, the government conceded that the materials sought by its subpoena would be protected by the attorney-client privilege but for waiver. Therefore, the issue here is whether, and to what extent, KDMC waived its attorneyclient privilege over material related to its experts’ study of Paulus’s procedures by disclosing selective information about the study to the government in the Shields Letter. Ordinarily, the voluntary disclosure of attorney-client privileged communications to a third party waives the privilege as to those communications. United States v. Dakota, 197 F.3d 821, 825 (6th Cir. 1999). And “[w]hen the disclosure is made in a federal proceeding or to a federal office or agency and waives the attorney-client privilege or work-product protection, the waiver extends to an undisclosed communication or information in a federal or state proceeding” when “(1) the waiver is intentional; (2) the disclosed and undisclosed communications or information concern the same subject matter; and (3) they ought in fairness to be considered together.” Fed. R. Evid. 502(a)(1)–(3). Parties may contract as to the “effect of disclosure in a federal proceeding”—but that agreement “is binding only on the parties to the agreement, unless it is incorporated into a court order.” Fed. R. Evid. 502(e). No. 22-5071 In re King’s Daughters Health Sys. Page 9 The district court found that KDMC’s partial disclosure of its experts’ findings in the Shields Letter waived KDMC’s privilege as to all the information related to the experts’ review of Paulus’s procedures. It also reasoned that Rule 502(e) did not apply because KDMC did not produce sufficient evidence to establish that it had an agreement with the government limiting the effect of its initial disclosure of the Shields Letter.2 We agree with the district court that KDMC’s disclosure of some information regarding its experts’ study waived its privilege over the related, undisclosed information now sought by the government. KDMC’s disclosure of the information in the Shields Letter was “intentional[.]” Fed. R. Evid. 502(a)(1). The undisclosed information now sought by the government, such as information for all 1049 procedures reviewed by KDMC’s experts and the methodology used by the experts, “concern[s] the same subject matter” as the information disclosed in the letter. Fed. R. Evid. 502(a)(2). And there can be little doubt that the information disclosed in the Shields Letter “ought in fairness to be considered together” with the undisclosed information regarding the study. Fed. R. Evid. 502(a)(3). Indeed, in this case, Paulus’s Fifth Amendment due process rights are in play. In Paulus II, we reversed Paulus’s convictions on grounds that the information about KDMC’s expert study contained in the Shields Letter was material and exculpatory, and therefore, the government’s failure to disclose the letter to Paulus violated Brady. 952 F.3d at 728. We reasoned that “the study tends to refute”—or at least, the information about the study contained in the Shields Letter tends to refute—“the government’s evidence that Paulus systematically misdiagnosed the 2 The district court also relied on this court’s opinion in In re Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp. Billing Pracs. Litig., 293 F.3d 289 (6th Cir. 2002). Columbia/HCA is inapposite here. In that case, private plaintiffs filed suit against a healthcare company related to its Medicaid and Medicare billing practices. Id. at 292. Prior to that suit, the government had settled with the company after opening a fraud investigation into those same billing practices. Id. The plaintiffs sought disclosure of internal audits the company had disclosed to the government during that fraud investigation. Id. at 293. The company opposed disclosure, asserting the theory of selective waiver. Id. It argued that it could disclose privileged material to the government while still maintaining its privilege over that material as to other parties. Id. This court rejected the company’s argument and the theory of selective waiver in its entirety: Once a party discloses privileged communications to one party, even the government, it does not retain the privilege over those communications as to other parties. Id. at 302–04. This case is different from Columbia/HCA because it involves a waiver dispute between the same parties privy to the initial disclosure. In other words, KDMC initially disclosed privileged material to the government; now, the government—the same party—seeks disclosure of additional undisclosed privileged material from KDMC based on KDMC’s initial disclosure. Columbia/HCA concerned whether disclosure of privileged material to the government waived privilege over that same material as to other parties. No. 22-5071 In re King’s Daughters Health Sys. Page 10 amount of blockage in his patients’ arteries.” Id. at 726. We also reasoned that Paulus “could have used the Shields Letter to impeach the government’s witnesses by calling into question how representative their samples were.” Id. at 727. But, as the district court found, the Shields Letter disclosed selective information about only a small portion of the data collected and analyzed by KDMC’s experts. Of course, Brady does not impose an obligation on private non-parties to disclose privileged information to the government that might exculpate a criminal defendant. But we do not think that KDMC, having selectively disclosed privileged information to the government about its experts’ study in an effort to settle potential claims against it, can maintain its privilege over the undisclosed information necessary to understand the study that we have found to be material to Paulus’s criminal defense. On the flip side, if the full scope of information about the study would not be exculpatory (as the government argued in Paulus II), Paulus is not entitled to admit the selective information disclosed in the Shields Letter to paint an inaccurate picture of that evidence to the jury. Were that the case, this situation is precisely the one for which Rule 502(a) was designed: where “fairness requires a further disclosure of related, protected information, in order to prevent a selective and misleading presentation of evidence to the disadvantage of the adversary.” Fed. R. Evid. 502(a) advisory committee notes. Either way, KDMC’s privilege over the undisclosed information about the study must give way to allow for a “complete and accurate presentation” of the study in Paulus’s criminal trial. Id. Finally, we see no clear error in the district court’s finding that KDMC failed to establish the existence of an agreement with the government limiting the scope of the waiver effectuated by the Shields Letter. See Fed. R. Evid. 502(e). KDMC and the government presented conflicting testimony on whether KDMC’s counsel reached a contemporaneous oral agreement with the government limiting its privilege waiver when sending the Shields Letter to the government. But KDMC has never produced a written agreement. Given the conflicting testimony and the absence of written agreement, we cannot say that the district court’s finding was clearly erroneous. See In re Powerhouse Licensing, LLC, 441 F.3d at 473. And ultimately, even if KDMC and the government had reached the purported oral agreement, we are skeptical No. 22-5071 In re King’s Daughters Health Sys. Page 11 that the agreement would be enforceable under Rule 502(e) given Rule 502(a) and the government’s Brady obligations. In sum, the district court did not err in granting the government’s motion to compel. KDMC is not clearly entitled to relief on the merits of its privilege claim. Cheney, 542 U.S. at 380. And because KDMC is not clearly entitled to relief, we need not consider whether mandamus is otherwise appropriate under the circumstances. See id. The petition for a writ of mandamus is DENIED. ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT Deborah S. Hunt, Clerk