Corporate Confidentiality Unlocked: Leveraging Common Interest Privilege for Effective Collaboration
In the complex realm of corporate litigation, the sanctity of attorney-client privilege is often the backbone of a robust defense strategy. Yet, the scope of this privilege can blur when multiple corporations collaborate with separate legal teams. In such situations, the common interest privilege (CIP) becomes a crucial tool, enabling corporations with distinct legal counsel to share information and strategize jointly without forfeiting confidentiality.
October 23, 2024 at 05:53 PM
11 minute read
LitigationIn the complex realm of corporate litigation, the sanctity of attorney-client privilege is often the backbone of a robust defense strategy. Yet, the scope of this privilege can blur when multiple corporations collaborate with separate legal teams. In such situations, the common interest privilege (CIP) becomes a crucial tool, enabling corporations with distinct legal counsel to share information and strategize jointly without forfeiting confidentiality. This extension is vital in an era where legal alliances are essential for navigating complex legal disputes. However, an examination across the U.S. Courts of Appeals reveals significant differing requirements to invoke CIP, making it crucial for corporations to understand these nuances to avoid the risk of their intended confidential communications being unexpectedly exposed in discovery.
What Is Common Interest Privilege?
Common interest privilege, also known as the community of interest or joint defense privilege, extends attorney-client privilege to protect communications between separate parties with shared legal interests but different representation. Waller v. Fin. Corp. of Am., 828 F.2d 579, 583 n.7 (9th Cir.1987); United States v. Bay State Ambulance & Hosp. Rental Serv., 874 F.2d 20, 28 (1st Cir. 1989). Originating from the need for codefendants to protect joint defense efforts in criminal cases, CIP has expanded to cover civil litigation, regulatory matters, and multi-party business disputes.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllOld Laws, New Tricks: Lawyers Using Patchwork of Creative Legal Theories to Target New Tech
Lawsuit Against Amazon Could Reshape E-Commerce Landscape
King Kullen—the Nation's First Supermarket—Hires Outside Counsel as GC
Trending Stories
- 1Philadelphia Bar Association Executive Director Announces Retirement
- 2SEC Chair Gary Gensler to Resign on Trump's Inauguration Day
- 3How I Made Partner: 'Develop a Practice Area You Really Care About,' Says Jennifer A. Gniady of Stradley Ronon
- 4Indian Billionaire Gautam Adani Indicted in Brooklyn for Alleged Orchestration of $250 Million Bribery Plot
- 5St. Ivo: Patron Saint of Lawyers
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250