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

Heading: Other Illustrative Cases

Text: 43 In a case involving an asserted waiver of the law enforcement privilege, the Seventh Circuit did not foreclose adopting selective waiver. In Dellwood Farms, Inc. v. Cargill, Inc., the government played certain tapes for corporate defense counsel to persuade the company to plead guilty. 128 F.3d 1122, 1124 (7th Cir.1997). The plaintiffs in ensuing civil litigation against the company argued the government had waived its law enforcement privilege by playing the tapes. Id. Any release to the plaintiffs would make the tapes available to individuals who were the targets of then-uncompleted grand jury investigations. Id. The court adopted the government's selective waiver theory in the circumstances of that case, holding that [s]ince there is no indication either that the government was acting in bad faith or that the plaintiffs in the present suits were hurt—and, to repeat, the government is not trying to take advantage of an adversary—interfering with a criminal investigation would be an excessive punishment. Id. at 1127. The court specifically noted, though, that it might find waiver (or, more accurately, forfeiture) if there were conduct that warranted declaring a forfeiture. Id. 44 The Federal Circuit rejected selective waiver in a case involving an entirely different means of waiving attorney-client and work-product protection, namely, the careless disclosure of inadequately screened materials directly to the adversary. See Genentech, Inc. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, 122 F.3d 1409, 1417 (Fed.Cir.1997) (A small number of courts have recognized, in circumstances not present here, a limited waiver that enables the attorney-client privilege to survive certain breaches of confidentiality. This court, however, has never recognized such a limited waiver. Moreover, Genentech has presented no compelling arguments as to why we should apply such a limited waiver theory in this case. (citations omitted)). 45 In contrast is In re M & L Business Machine Co., where the district court applied selective waiver of the attorney-client privilege where disclosures were protected by a confidentiality agreement. 161 B.R. 689 (D.Colo.1993). There, a bank sought a protective order for its counsel's letters and memoranda that it had previously provided to the United States Attorney to assist in an investigation of one of the bank's clients, M & L Business Machines Co. Id. at 691-92. The Bank's cooperation was expressly made subject to the requirement that any information provided under the Letter Agreement be treated as privileged, subject to protection under Fed.R.Crim.P. 16(a)(2) and not be disseminated except as required under federal law or the rules of criminal procedure. Id. at 691. The trustee of M & L then sought production of the materials. After reviewing Diversified, Permian, and other selective waiver cases, the district court stated, while I am wary of extending evidentiary privileges, in the unique circumstances of this case, the policies upon which the above decisions were based lead me to conclude that the Bank has not waived the attorney-client privilege as to the Letters and Memoranda. Id. at 696. Specifically, the court's decision rested on: (1) the substantial steps the bank took to ensure the confidentiality of the materials disclosed; (2) the fact that there was no evidence that the Bank's cooperation with the U.S. Attorney was for the purpose of obtaining some benefit for itself; and (3) the fact that the Bank does not seek to protect the privilege in an investigatory or law enforcement proceeding brought by another federal regulatory agency, but in bankruptcy adversary proceedings akin to one brought by a civil litigant. Id.