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

litigationattorneysubpoenawrit of mandamusgrand juryattorney-client privilege
attorneywrit of mandamusattorney-client privilege

Related Cases

Hernandez v. Tanninen, 604 F.3d 1095, 109 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 481, 10 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5725, 2010 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6856
View Case »
Diversified Industries, Inc. v. Meredith, 572 F.2d 596, 23 Fed.R.Serv.2d 1473, 24 Fed.R.Serv.2d 1201, 1977-2 Trade Cases P 61,591, 1978-1 Trade Cases P 61,879
View Case »
Mead Data Central, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Air Force, 566 F.2d 242, 184 U.S.App.D.C. 350, 3 Media L. Rep. 1001
View Case »
Janik v. Rudy, Exelrod & Zieff, 119 Cal.App.4th 930, 14 Cal.Rptr.3d 751, 04 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5507, 04 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6551, 2004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7523, 2004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8931
View Case »
In re Martin Marietta Corp., 856 F.2d 619, 57 USLW 2212
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

In re Pacific Pictures Corp., 679 F.3d 1121, 12 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5179, 2012 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6177

Facts

The case arose from a long-standing dispute over the rights to the Superman character created by Jerome Siegel and Joe Shuster. Marc Toberoff, an attorney and producer, entered into a joint venture with the heirs of Siegel and Shuster to manage litigation against D.C. Comics. After an attorney working for Toberoff allegedly stole documents and sent them to D.C. Comics, Toberoff complied with a grand jury subpoena to produce documents without redaction, leading to D.C. Comics claiming that the attorney-client privilege was waived.

The case arose from a long-standing dispute over the rights to the Superman character created by Jerome Siegel and Joe Shuster.

Issue

Whether a party waives attorney-client privilege forever by voluntarily disclosing privileged documents to the federal government.

Whether a party waives attorney-client privilege forever by voluntarily disclosing privileged documents to the federal government.

Rule

Voluntary disclosure of privileged documents to third parties generally destroys the attorney-client privilege, and selective waiver is not recognized in this circuit.

Voluntary disclosure of privileged documents to third parties generally destroys the attorney-client privilege, and selective waiver is not recognized in this circuit.

Analysis

The court analyzed the implications of Toberoff's voluntary disclosure of documents to the government, concluding that such disclosure breached the confidentiality necessary to maintain the attorney-client privilege. The court noted that the theory of selective waiver had been rejected by other circuits and emphasized that the privilege is intended to encourage full and frank communication between attorneys and clients.

The court analyzed the implications of Toberoff's voluntary disclosure of documents to the government, concluding that such disclosure breached the confidentiality necessary to maintain the attorney-client privilege.

Conclusion

The court denied the petition for a writ of mandamus, affirming the district court's order that the disclosure of documents to the government waived any remaining attorney-client privilege.

The court denied the petition for a writ of mandamus, affirming the district court's order that the disclosure of documents to the government waived any remaining attorney-client privilege.

Who won?

D.C. Comics prevailed in the case because the court upheld the ruling that the disclosure of documents to the government waived the attorney-client privilege.

D.C. Comics prevailed in the case because the court upheld the ruling that the disclosure of documents to the government waived the attorney-client privilege.

You must be