Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantattorneydiscoverymotionconfidentiality agreementgrand juryattorney-client privilege
defendantattorneydiscoverymotiongrand juryattorney-client privilege

Related Cases

In re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation, 265 F.Supp.2d 385, 2003-2 Trade Cases P 74,099
View Case »
Lane v. Chowning, 610 F.2d 1385
View Case »
South Carolina Nat. Bank v. Stone, 139 F.R.D. 325, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 96,228
View Case »
Farese v. Scherer, 342 F.3d 1223, 16 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 1000
View Case »
In re Original Grand Jury Investigation, 89 Ohio St.3d 544, 733 N.E.2d 1135, 2000 -Ohio- 170
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

U.S. v. Bergonzi, 214 F.R.D. 563

Facts

The case arose from a grand jury indictment against former executives of HBO & Company for securities, wire, and mail fraud. Following the discovery of accounting irregularities by McKesson's auditors, the company conducted an internal investigation, which included the preparation of a report by the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. This report and related materials were shared with the SEC and the USAO under confidentiality agreements, which McKesson later argued protected the documents from disclosure in the criminal proceedings against its former executives.

The case arose from a grand jury indictment against former executives of HBO & Company for securities, wire, and mail fraud. Following the discovery of accounting irregularities by McKesson's auditors, the company conducted an internal investigation, which included the preparation of a report by the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.

Issue

The main legal issues were whether McKesson could intervene to challenge the production of documents and whether the documents were protected by attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine.

The main legal issues were whether McKesson could intervene to challenge the production of documents and whether the documents were protected by attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine.

Rule

The court applied the principles of attorney-client privilege and work product protection, determining that the privilege must be maintained in confidence and that voluntary disclosure to a government agency can constitute a waiver of such privileges.

The court applied the principles of attorney-client privilege and work product protection, determining that the privilege must be maintained in confidence and that voluntary disclosure to a government agency can constitute a waiver of such privileges.

Analysis

The court found that McKesson's disclosure of the report and related materials to the government was not protected by attorney-client privilege because the communications were intended to be relayed to a third party. Additionally, the court ruled that the work product protection was waived due to the voluntary disclosure of the documents to the government, which was considered an adversary in the context of the investigation.

The court found that McKesson's disclosure of the report and related materials to the government was not protected by attorney-client privilege because the communications were intended to be relayed to a third party.

Conclusion

The court granted McKesson's motion to intervene but ultimately ruled that the defendants were entitled to the production of the requested materials, as the claimed privileges were not applicable.

The court granted McKesson's motion to intervene but ultimately ruled that the defendants were entitled to the production of the requested materials, as the claimed privileges were not applicable.

Who won?

The defendants prevailed in the case because the court determined that the documents sought were not protected by privilege, allowing their production.

The defendants prevailed in the case because the court determined that the documents sought were not protected by privilege, allowing their production.

You must be