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

attorneytrialmotioncommon lawprivileged communicationattorney-client privilege
attorneytrialmotioncommon lawprivileged communicationattorney-client privilege

Related Cases

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
View Case »
Deal v. United States, Not Reported in Fed. Rptr., 2016 WL 9405828
View Case »
In re J.D. Edwards World Solutions Co., 87 S.W.3d 546, 46 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 18
View Case »
Tallon v. Committee on Professional Standards, Third Judicial Dept., 86 A.D.2d 897, 447 N.Y.S.2d 50
View Case »
Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030, 111 S.Ct. 2720, 115 L.Ed.2d 888, 59 USLW 4858
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Wadler v. Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc., 212 F.Supp.3d 829

Facts

Sanford Wadler served as Bio-Rad's general counsel for nearly 25 years before being terminated in June 2013. He alleged that his termination was in retaliation for investigating potential violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and reporting these concerns to the company's Audit Committee. Bio-Rad contended that Wadler was terminated due to poor work performance and behavior. The case involved administrative proceedings with the SEC and DOL regarding Wadler's whistleblower complaint.

Sanford Wadler served as Bio-Rad's general counsel for nearly 25 years before being terminated in June 2013. He alleged that his termination was in retaliation for investigating potential violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and reporting these concerns to the company's Audit Committee. Bio-Rad contended that Wadler was terminated due to poor work performance and behavior. The case involved administrative proceedings with the SEC and DOL regarding Wadler's whistleblower complaint.

Issue

Whether Bio-Rad's motion to exclude protected information from the trial was timely and whether Wadler could rely on privileged communications to support his claims.

Whether Bio-Rad's motion to exclude protected information from the trial was timely and whether Wadler could rely on privileged communications to support his claims.

Rule

The court applied federal common law related to privilege, determining that the employee could rely on privileged communications and confidential information necessary for his claims, and that the employer had waived its attorney-client privilege.

The court applied federal common law related to privilege, determining that the employee could rely on privileged communications and confidential information necessary for his claims, and that the employer had waived its attorney-client privilege.

Analysis

The court found that Bio-Rad's motion to exclude was untimely, as it was filed on the eve of trial and did not comply with the established schedule. The court also ruled that Wadler's claims were intertwined with privileged information, but that he was permitted to use such information as it was necessary to prove his case. The court emphasized that Bio-Rad had waived its attorney-client privilege by disclosing information in prior proceedings and public filings.

The court found that Bio-Rad's motion to exclude was untimely, as it was filed on the eve of trial and did not comply with the established schedule. The court also ruled that Wadler's claims were intertwined with privileged information, but that he was permitted to use such information as it was necessary to prove his case. The court emphasized that Bio-Rad had waived its attorney-client privilege by disclosing information in prior proceedings and public filings.

Conclusion

The court denied Bio-Rad's motion to exclude protected information, allowing Wadler to present evidence based on privileged communications. The ruling underscored the importance of timely motions and the implications of waiving attorney-client privilege.

The court denied Bio-Rad's motion to exclude protected information, allowing Wadler to present evidence based on privileged communications. The ruling underscored the importance of timely motions and the implications of waiving attorney-client privilege.

Who won?

Sanford Wadler prevailed in the case as the court denied Bio-Rad's motion to exclude evidence, allowing him to use privileged communications to support his claims.

Sanford Wadler prevailed in the case as the court denied Bio-Rad's motion to exclude evidence, allowing him to use privileged communications to support his claims.

You must be