Opinion ID: 4442257
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: “At‐Issue” Waiver

Text: This Court has also held that a party waives the work product protection over a document by placing that document “at issue” or by making “testimonial use” of that document. Specifically, “in certain circumstances a party’s assertion of factual claims can, out of considerations of fairness to the party’s adversary, result in the involuntary forfeiture of privileges for matters pertinent to the claims asserted.” John Doe Co. v. United States, 350 F.3d 299, 302 (2d Cir. 2003). We have said that this kind of unfairness may arise when “a party[] advance[es] a claim to a court or jury (or perhaps another type of decision maker) while relying on its privilege to withhold from a litigation adversary materials that the adversary might need to effectively contest or impeach the claim.” Id. at 303; see also United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 239‐40; In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 219 F.3d 174 (2d Cir. 2000) (“[I]mplied waiver may be found where a privilege holder ‘asserts a claim that in fairness requires examination of protected communications.’”) (quoting United States v. Bilzerian, 926 F.2d 1285, 1292) (1991)). The archetypal example of a situation where this doctrine applies is that of United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225 (1975). There, the Supreme Court identified 30 a “testimonial” use of work product by a criminal defendant that would be sufficiently unfair to the prosecution so as to waive the privilege. At the underlying trial, the prosecution had called two eye witnesses who identified the defendant as the perpetrator of a bank robbery. Before trial, an investigator for the defense had interviewed these two witnesses, elicited statements that seemed to undermine their credibility, and memorialized these statements in a written report. When the defense sought to call this investigator to testify at trial, the government demanded that the investigator’s written report be produced. Id. at 227‐30. The defense objected, citing the work product privilege. Id. at 236‐40. But the Supreme Court agreed with the government, holding that the defendant “can no more advance the work product doctrine to sustain a unilateral testimonial use of work product materials than he could elect to testify in his own behalf and thereafter assert his Fifth Amendment privilege to resist cross‐examination on matters reasonably related to those brought out in direct examination.” Id. at 239‐40; see also John Doe Co., 350 F.3d at 303 (discussing Nobles). As the plaintiffs‐appellees note, we have sometimes “used broad language in describing [this] doctrine, such as generalizing about the incompatibility of using . . . assertions as a ‘sword’ while using privileges attaching to related 31 matter as a ‘shield.’” John Doe Co., 350 F.3d at 302. We have subsequently clarified, however, that implied waiver of the work product privilege based on the “fairness” or “at‐issue” doctrine is not nearly so broad. To find implied waiver, we look for specific instances of unfairness that undermine the adversarial process, and this is inherently a case‐by‐case determination. Id. (citing In re Grand Jury, 219 F.3d at 193).