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

attorneysubpoenaappealtrialmotionwillprivileged communicationadmissibilitypiracy

attorneyappealtrialwilladmissibilitypiracy

Related Cases

In re Martin Marietta Corp., 856 F.2d 619, 57 USLW 2212

Facts

William C. Pollard was indicted on three counts, including conspiracy to defraud the Department of Defense and mail fraud, for allegedly mischaracterizing travel cost rebates as fees. Pollard subpoenaed Martin Marietta for documents related to the case, but the company moved to quash the subpoena. The district court denied the motion but limited the scope of the subpoena, leading to a dispute over the production of certain documents, including internal audit reports and witness statements.

William C. Pollard was indicted on three counts, including conspiracy to defraud the Department of Defense and mail fraud, for allegedly mischaracterizing travel cost rebates as fees.

Issue

Did Martin Marietta waive its attorney-client and work-product privileges by disclosing information to the government, and to what extent does this waiver apply to the documents requested by Pollard?

Rule

The court applied the standards established in United States v. Nixon, which require a party seeking pretrial production of documents to demonstrate relevancy, admissibility, and specificity. The court also considered the implications of implied waiver of attorney-client and work-product privileges when privileged communications are disclosed to third parties.

The court applied the standards established in United States v. Nixon, which require a party seeking pretrial production of documents to demonstrate relevancy, admissibility, and specificity.

Analysis

The court found that Pollard met the Nixon requirements for document production, as the requested materials were relevant and described with sufficient specificity. It ruled that Martin Marietta's prior disclosures to the government constituted an implied waiver of attorney-client and non-opinion work-product privileges, but it remanded the case to determine whether opinion work-product was included in the documents ordered for production.

The court found that Pollard met the Nixon requirements for document production, as the requested materials were relevant and described with sufficient specificity.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order for the production of documents not protected by work-product privilege, but vacated the order regarding documents claimed to be opinion work-product, remanding for further review.

Who won?

William C. Pollard prevailed in part, as the court upheld the order for the production of certain documents, finding that Martin Marietta had waived its privileges by disclosing information to the government.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Schreiber v. Rowe, 814 So.2d 396, 27 Fla. L. Weekly S248

San Diegans for Open Government v. City of San Diego, 247 Cal.App.4th 1306, 203 Cal.Rptr.3d 34, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5941, 2016 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5453

In re Grand Jury Investigation, 437 Mass. 340, 772 N.E.2d 9, 167 Ed. Law Rep. 388

Klaiber v. Orzel, 148 Ariz. 320, 714 P.2d 813

State, ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass’n v. Flaniken, 85 P.3d 824, 2004 OK 6