Opinion ID: 767958
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The MDL Litigation

Text: 6 The evidence on which much of the new trial motions rested came to light as a result of the MDL proceedings. In November 1997, the lead plaintiffs in the MDL litigation moved to set aside American Honda's attorney-client and work product privileges as to all communications regarding gratuities among American Honda, Honda North America, and any of their attorneys that occurred between 1979 and June 1993. On March 10, 1998, the district court ordered production of these communications between specified persons, finding that the crime-fraud exception vitiated the attorney-client and work product privileges. On March 24, 1998, a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied a request to stay that order, finding that the apparent breadth of American Honda's design to enlist the assistance, knowing or otherwise, of its attorneys in concealing evidence of gratuities supports the district court's finding that the privileges asserted in the instant case are negated by the crime-fraud exception. In June 1998, the district court also granted the plaintiffs' separate motion to compel the production of two memoranda written by counsel representing American Honda. These memoranda discussed two proffer meetings held in New Hampshire between American Honda and the prosecutors in the criminal case against Josleyn, Billmyer, and other American Honda employees. The MDL court found that American Honda had, at these meetings, attempted to persuade the prosecutor that it was innocent of any wrongdoing and that it was ignorant of the crimes committed by its former executives who were under investigation. In so doing, the court concluded, the extent of American Honda's knowledge was concealed from the prosecutor. According to the district court, there was prima facie evidence... that members of American Honda's upper management did have knowledge of (or at least wilfully blinded themselves to) allegations of bribe-taking by Honda executives. These findings led the court to note the possible impact this newly revealed evidence might have on the criminal prosecutions of Josleyn and Billmyer: 7 The indictment in United States v. Billmyer broadly charged that the defendants had devised and intended to devise a scheme to defraud American Honda and its dealers against the background of allegations relating to American Honda's conflict of interest policy and its policy regarding the award of new dealerships. If (as plaintiffs contend) the written policies were merely empty verbiage because of widespread knowledge about the illegal conduct among members of the upper management of American Honda..., the factual underpinnings of the prosecutions would have been brought into question. 8 In re Am. Honda Motor Co. Dealer Relations Litig., slip op. at 10 n.7.