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

plaintiffdefendantattorneydiscoverymotionclass actionwrit of mandamus
plaintiffdefendantattorneydiscoverymotionclass actionwrit of mandamus

Related Cases

In re International Systems and Controls Corp. Securities Litigation, 693 F.2d 1235, 35 Fed.R.Serv.2d 732, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 99,036
View Case »
U.S. v. Guerrerio, 670 F.Supp. 1215
View Case »
Virzi v. Grand Trunk Warehouse and Cold Storage Co., 571 F.Supp. 507, 37 Fed.R.Serv.2d 864
View Case »
Silverman v. Clark, 35 A.D.3d 1, 822 N.Y.S.2d 9, 2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 06814
View Case »
Patterson v. Illinois, 487 U.S. 285, 108 S.Ct. 2389, 101 L.Ed.2d 261, 56 USLW 4733
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

In re Steinhardt Partners, L.P., 9 F.3d 230, 62 USLW 2318, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 97,818, 27 Fed.R.Serv.3d 726

Facts

Defendants Steinhardt Partners, L.P., Steinhardt Management Co., and Michael Steinhardt were involved in a civil class action suit alleging manipulation of the market for two-year Treasury notes. In response to a discovery request, Steinhardt identified a memorandum prepared by its attorneys and submitted to the SEC, but refused to produce it, claiming it was protected as attorney work product. The district court granted the plaintiffs' motion to compel production, leading Steinhardt to file a petition for a writ of mandamus.

Defendants Steinhardt Partners, L.P., Steinhardt Management Co., and Michael Steinhardt were involved in a civil class action suit alleging manipulation of the market for two-year Treasury notes. In response to a discovery request, Steinhardt identified a memorandum prepared by its attorneys and submitted to the SEC, but refused to produce it, claiming it was protected as attorney work product. The district court granted the plaintiffs' motion to compel production, leading Steinhardt to file a petition for a writ of mandamus.

Issue

Did the trader's voluntary disclosure of a legal memorandum to the SEC waive the protections of the work product doctrine in subsequent civil discovery?

Did the trader's voluntary disclosure of a legal memorandum to the SEC waive the protections of the work product doctrine in subsequent civil discovery?

Rule

Voluntary disclosure of work product to an adversary waives the privilege as to other parties, as the need for the privilege disappears once an adversary has access to the otherwise privileged thought processes of counsel.

Voluntary disclosure of work product to an adversary waives the privilege as to other parties, as the need for the privilege disappears once an adversary has access to the otherwise privileged thought processes of counsel.

Analysis

The court found that Steinhardt voluntarily disclosed the memorandum to the SEC, which stood in an adversarial position during the investigation. The district court held that this voluntary disclosure waived any work product protection, as the policy considerations behind the work product doctrine do not merit an exception to the waiver rule. The court emphasized that the disclosure was not coerced and that the SEC's request was part of an ongoing investigation.

The court found that Steinhardt voluntarily disclosed the memorandum to the SEC, which stood in an adversarial position during the investigation. The district court held that this voluntary disclosure waived any work product protection, as the policy considerations behind the work product doctrine do not merit an exception to the waiver rule. The court emphasized that the disclosure was not coerced and that the SEC's request was part of an ongoing investigation.

Conclusion

The court denied the petition for a writ of mandamus, affirming the district court's order compelling production of the memorandum. The stay on the order was lifted.

The court denied the petition for a writ of mandamus, affirming the district court's order compelling production of the memorandum. The stay on the order was lifted.

Who won?

Plaintiffs prevailed in the case as the court upheld the district court's decision to compel the production of the memorandum, finding that the voluntary disclosure to the SEC waived the work product protection.

Plaintiffs prevailed in the case as the court upheld the district court's decision to compel the production of the memorandum, finding that the voluntary disclosure to the SEC waived the work product protection.

You must be