Opinion ID: 167649
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Circuits Leaving Possibility of Selective Waiver Open

Text: 57 Unlike their treatment of the attorney-client privilege, a few circuits have rejected selective waiver of work-product protection in the particular cases before them, while simultaneously leaving room for applying the doctrine in other circumstances. 58 In In Re Sealed Case, the D.C. Circuit rejected work-product protection against discovery by a grand jury of documents a company had previously made available to the SEC. 676 F.2d 793, 824 (D.C.Cir.1982). The record in that case did not indicate whether the company had entered into a confidentiality agreement with the SEC. Id. at 820. In rejecting selective waiver, the court indicated it was reluctant to supply any such agreement: [t]he SEC or any other government agency could expressly agree to any limits on disclosure to other agencies consistent with their responsibilities under law. But courts should not imply such agreements on a categorical basis. Id. at 824. 59 Shortly thereafter, in In re Subpoenas Duces Tecum, the D.C. Circuit applied Sealed Case to reject a claim of selective waiver for work-product material in circumstances similar to Qwest's case. 738 F.2d at 1371-72. The court, however, did not definitively reject the selective waiver doctrine under all circumstances; rather, the decision rested on three factors: (1) the proposed use of work-product protection was not consistent with the doctrine's purpose, (2) appellants had no reasonable basis for believing that the disclosed materials would be kept confidential by the SEC, and (3) applying waiver would not trench on any policy elements now inherent in this [protection]. Id. at 1372. Noting the company chose to participate in the SEC's voluntary disclosure program, the court stated: 60 That decision was obviously motivated by self-interest. Appellants now want work product protection for those same disclosures against different adversaries in suits centering on the very same matters disclosed to the SEC. It would be unreasonable to suppose that litigation with these other adversaries was not anticipated at the time of disclosure to the SEC. It would also be inconsistent and unfair to allow appellants to select according to their own self-interest to which adversaries they will allow access to the materials. 61 Id. The court emphasized that the company had failed to ensure the SEC would in turn not disclose the materials, stating that companies could protect their materials by not disclosing them, [o]r the company can insist on a promise of confidentiality before disclosure to the SEC. Id. at 1375. 62 Similarly, in Steinhardt Partners, the Second Circuit denied mandamus relief to defendants claiming work-product protection for a memorandum previously disclosed to the SEC. 9 F.3d at 230. Examination of conflicting authority and of the purposes of the work product doctrine convinces us that Steinhardt waived any work product protection by voluntarily submitting the memorandum to the SEC. Id. at 235. The court, however, continued, [i]n denying the petition, we decline to adopt a per se rule that all voluntary disclosures to the government waive work product protection. Crafting rules relating to privilege in matters of governmental investigations must be done on a case-by-case basis. Id. at 236. It especially noted that a per se rule would fail to anticipate situations ... in which the SEC and the disclosing party have entered into an explicit agreement that the SEC will maintain the confidentiality of the disclosed materials. Id. 63 These decisions all involved situations in which the parties failed to enter into a confidentiality agreement before disclosing materials, not circumstances in which the government agreed to strict confidentiality in exchange for disclosure of work product. But see Columbia/HCA Healthcare, 293 F.3d at 307 (rejecting selective waiver for work product, despite existence of confidentiality agreement); Westinghouse, 951 F.2d at 1430 (same). As a consequence, it remains an open question in those circuits whether a stringent confidentiality agreement limiting further dissemination by the government might support selective waiver.