Best Practices For NC In House Counsel To Avoid Being Deposed

Similar documents
Corporate Depositions: Limiting In-House Counsel Depos and Selecting/Preparing Employees for 30(b)(6) Depos

Case 1:11-mc RLW Document 1 Filed 05/17/11 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Preparing the Lawyer to Be the Witness

231 F.R.D. 343 United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. TOYO TIRE U.S.A. CORP., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No: 14 C 206 )

INVESTIGATIONS, ATTORNEYS & PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION. ) PUBLIC In the Matter of ) ) INTEL CORPORATION, ) Docket No ) Respondent.

Case 1:11-mc RLW Document 4 Filed 06/03/11 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case: 1:13-cv Document #: 169 Filed: 02/16/16 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:2729

Defending Rule 30(b)(6) Corporate Depositions in Employment Litigation

Attorney Work-Product in the United States:

Case 2:13-cv MMB Document 173 Filed 02/13/15 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

The attorney-client privilege

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Case 1:13-cv MCA-LF Document 152 Filed 10/22/16 Page 1 of 19 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

Current Ethics Issues Relating to Opinions:

Case 6:09-cv GAP-TBS Document 149 Filed 08/14/12 Page 1 of 9 PageID 3714

Avoiding Ethical Pitfalls in the Deposition Process

Strategies for Defending 30(b)(6) Depositions

#6792 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

AMENDED RULE 26 EXPERT WITNESS DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS

Ethical Issues in Representing or Litigating Against Organizations. Dennis P. Duffy 2016

Crafting the Winning Argument in Spoliation Cases: And the Dog Ate Our Documents Isn t It

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case: 1:10-cv Document #: 189 Filed: 11/09/12 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:2937

SO YOU WANT TO DEPOSE OPPOSING COUNSEL?

Case: 1:13-cv Document #: 138 Filed: 03/31/15 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:2059

The Trusted Advisor's Dilemma: Maintaining the Attorney Client Privilege as In-House Counsel. The Attorney-Client Privilege

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC

GT Crystal Systems, LLC and GT Solar Hong Kong, Ltd. Chandra Khattak, Kedar Gupta, and Advanced RenewableEnergy Co., LLC. NO.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION. v. C.A. NO. C

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

Case: 4:11-cv JAR Doc. #: 93 Filed: 04/20/17 Page: 1 of 7 PageID #: 710

Presenting a live 90 minute webinar with interactive Q&A. Td Today s faculty features:

A Primer on 30(b)(6) Depositions

Case No. 2:13-cv-1157 OPINION AND ORDER

Case 1:14-cv FB-RLM Document 492 Filed 11/17/16 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 13817

The 2010 Amendments to the Expert Discovery Provisions of Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: A Brief Reminder

LaRoche vs. Champlain Oil Company Inc. et al ENTRY REGARDING MOTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiffs, Defendant.

THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE AROUND THE WORLD

Case Doc 150 Filed 01/09/18 Entered 01/09/18 11:24:48 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

Case 3:16-cv HZ Document 24 Filed 05/04/17 Page 1 of 10

IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR POLK COUNTY : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

Peterson v. Bernardi. District of New Jersey Civil No RMB-JS (July 24, 2009)

Case 1:17-mc DAB Document 28 Filed 06/22/17 Page 1 of 20

DISCOVERY OF COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE EXPERT WITNESS

Case 3:17-cv WHA Document 1349 Filed 08/24/17 Page 1 of 22 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

Case 3:17-mc K Document 1 Filed 04/17/17 Page 1 of 10 PageID 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

State's Objections to Discovery and Motion for Protective Order

CIRCUIT AND CHANCERY COURTS:

6/5/2018 THE RULE AND THE NOTICE THE STANDARD NOTICE ATTACKING THE NOTICE, PREPARING FOR AND DEFENDING THE RULE 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION

Third-Party Attorney-Client Privilege Waiver Exceptions: Kovel, Common Interest and Functional Equivalent Doctrines

Applications in Aid Of Foreign Proceedings: Conducting Depositions and Obtaining Disclosure in England

Preparing Your Employees to be Witnesses in Civil Cases

USDCSDNY DOCUf.1E1\i' ELECfROl'lICA.LLY FILED DOC#: DATE FiLED: 1~/2SI1;)

Case: 2:13-cv MHW-TPK Doc #: 130 Filed: 07/08/14 Page: 1 of 9 PAGEID #: 2883

Litigating in California State Court, but Not a Local? (Part 2) 1

What Keeps You Up at Night?

Case 1:13-cv EGS Document 87 Filed 06/03/16 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE

Consider Hearsay Issues Before A Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

Internal Investigations: Practical and Ethical Concerns Facing In-House Counsel

PRESERVING THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PROTECTION IN INTERNAL AND GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATIONS. Chief Counsel, Investigations

Background The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure adopted in 1938 encouraged full pre-trial disclosure (ream or reams of paper). Present day litigation

Resolution Through the Courts TEI Audits & Appeals Seminar

Case 1:15-cr RMB Document 335 Filed 11/07/17 Page 1 of 12

Document Analysis Technology Group (DATG) and Records Management Alert

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS Filed 12/8/08 : : : : : : : DECISION

DECISION ON MOTION. Plaintiff s Requests to Produce 1

PART III Discovery CHAPTER 8. Overview of the Discovery Process KEY POINTS THE NATURE OF DISCOVERY THE EXTENT OF ALLOWABLE DISCOVERY

Components of an Effective Ethical Screen

Motion to Compel ( Defendant s Motion ) and Plaintiff Joseph Lee Gay s ( Plaintiff ) Motion

Case 3:10-cv HTW-MTP Document 127 Filed 12/06/16 Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA WESTERN DIVISION

Selecting Eminent Domain Experts

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. This matter comes before the Court upon Defendant Hartford Life & Accident Insurance

I. INTRODUCTION. Plaintiff, AAIpharma, Inc., (hereinafter AAIpharma ), brought suit against defendants,

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DISTRICT

DISQUALIFICATION OF THE ADVOCATE/WITNESS Adopted June 18, 1988 Revised June 18, 1994, May 10, 1997 and October 20, 2012

ALI-ABA Course of Study Current Developments in Employment Law July 24-26, 2008 Santa Fe, New Mexico

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 3:08-cv JA Document 103 Filed 09/27/10 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

Expert Discovery: Does a Testifying Expert s Consideration of Attorney Work Product Vitiate the Attorney Work-Product Privilege?

Case 1:17-cv WYD-MEH Document 9 Filed 09/22/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 9 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA SAVANNAH DIVISION

Annual Advanced ALI-ABA Course of Study Civil Practice and Litigation Techniques in Federal and State Courts

Prompt Remedial Action and Waiver of Privilege

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA. This matter is before the court on Defendant JBS USA, LLC s ( JBS ) Bill of

BEGELMAN & ORLOW, P.C. Attorneys at Law

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Cheap Talk? Witness Payments and Conferring with Testifying Witnesses. Copyright John M. Barkett 2014

Transcription:

womblebonddickinson.com Best Practices For NC In House Counsel To Avoid Being Deposed Presentation to the Charlotte Chapter of the ACC November 1, 2017

Attorney Work Product United Phosphorus, Ltd. v. Midland Fumigant, Inc., 164 F.R.D. 245, 247 (D. Kan. 1995). Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3) clearly contemplates discovery from attorneys as well as from the parties themselves or their agents. Requesting party must prove substantial need and the inability to obtain through other means. FRCP 26(b)(3)(ii). 5

Avoiding the Sucker Punch! As one court colorfully summarized, A party shouldn t be able to use a deposition to sucker punch the other side s quarterback or listen in on the other side s huddle. Cascone v. Niles Home for Children, 897 F.Supp. 1263, 1267 (W.D. Mo. 1995). 6

How It Arises (1) Subpoena or Deposition Notice (2) Motion to Quash (3) Court Examines the Proposed Scope 7

GOAL: (1)No Discovery OR (2)Protective Order Less Desirable: Question by Question 8

Shelton v. Ameri. Motors Corp. 805 F2d 1323, 1327 (8 th Cir 1986) Did the trial judge properly impose sanctions on in-house counsel for refusing to answer questions as to whether she possessed documents concerning testing performed on the vehicle involved in the death case? Eighth Circuit Reversed Sanctions The questions would provide a road map of litigation strategy, work product doctrine protected. 9

The Shelton Rule Under Shelton, the party seeking to depose the opposing party s counsel has the burden to show: 1) No other means exists to obtain the information than to depose opposing counsel, 2) the information sought is relevant and non-privileged, and 3) the information is crucial to the preparation of the case. When does Shelton criteria apply? In general, when trial or litigation counsel are being deposed and the questioning would expose litigation strategy in the pending case. 10

U.S.A. v. Philip Morris, Inc., 209 F.R.D. 13, 156, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15787 (D.D.C. Aug. 23, 2002). Shelton factors were inapplicable because: The deponents were employees to whom the company had knowingly assigned substantial non-legal, non-litigation responsibilities, including corporate, business, managerial, public relations, advertising, scientific, as well as research and development responsibilities. The government was not seeking to depose the various in-house counsel about the defense or litigation strategies related to this case. The principal rationale driving the Shelton decision was not raised by the facts of this case. The proposed deponents were not litigation or trial counsel. 11

Edison v. Acuity Healthcare 2016 WL 6518800 NC Business Court decision in wrongful termination case No NC appellant court has adopted the Shelton approach (although it has been followed by 2 federal district courts in NC) In house counsel had relevant facts Not substantially involved in litigation Protective Order Denied

How Does It Happen? Fact Witness Is a lawyer s conduct the basis of a claim or a defense? Verification of pleadings Documents written in your name Affidavits 12

Your Job Description Corporate decisions to allow inhouse counsel to wear multiple hats comes at a cost. In-house litigators assuming additional duties can create problems. 13

Meetings Purpose in attending meetings: Is it to provide legal advice or for others to seek legal advice? 14

Wright. v. Life Investors, Ins. Co. of America, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116799 at *6-7 (N.D. Miss. Nov. 24, 2009). The Shelton factors were not controlling since the lawyer whose deposition was sought had acted primarily in a business capacity. 15

Decision-Making Avoid situations where the only person capable of answering the question is the lawyer, i.e., an example would be an ultimate decision maker. 16

Witnessing Events The decision maker will always be deposed in an adverse employment action. The ultimate decision maker should be someone else and the decision should be conveyed by someone else. In-house counsel should not be present for the meeting. Obviously, in-house counsel can offer a legal opinion, but in-house counsel should not be the final decision maker. 17

Investigations Be cautious in playing a significant role in investigating. For example, tread carefully when taking notes during investigations. Being a fact gatherer means that notes taken may be discoverable if such notes are not privileged. 18

In the course of an investigation, in-house counsel should include a statement limiting circulation of a memorandum to those on a need-to-know basis. Mark the memorandum as privileged and define the purpose of the investigation both in the memo and orally to anyone being interviewed. Gather information for the purpose of providing legal advice. Include mental impressions in the memorandum, i.e., opinions about the witness credibility. 19

Blinding Glimpse of the Obvious Remember that the attorneyclient privilege does not protect against the disclosure of facts. 20

Tips Searching files during the discovery process can make the attorney a fact witness regarding discovery compliance. If a lawyer is going to have dual roles, written job responsibilities should distinguish legal counsel role. Documents created in the ordinary course of business should be segregated from those created in anticipation of litigation. NOTE: LEGAL HOLD BEGINS WHEN WORK PRODUCT IS TRIGGERED! 21

If There Is Litigation Consider internal memo designating in-house counsel to oversee litigation. Consider whether in-house counsel should make a record by entering an appearance. 22

Murphy v. Adelphia Recovery Trust, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXUS 1232027 (N.D. Tex. 2009) Subpoena quashed because although the subpoenaed lawyer was not trial counsel, she was part of the litigation team and participated in strategy discussions, assisted in drafting pleadings, met with witnesses, and helped collect and review documents. 23

If you are Deposed Having separate counsel for the in-house lawyer can eliminate conflict of interest concerns. A separate unbiased attorney to advise the in-house lawyer regarding ethical mandates and privilege assertions. Objections and instructions not to answer may still be appropriate. 24

Questions? Mark Henriques Partner Womble Bond Dickinson One Wells Fargo Center, Suite 3500 301 South College Street Charlotte, NC 28202-6037 704-331-4912 (work) 704-650-2496 (mobile) 704-338-7830 (fax) Mark.Henriques@wbd-us.com 25