The Community-of-Interest Privilege

The ABA's Litigation News recently described an opinion from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania refusing to apply the community-of-interest privilege, and provided an overview of the history of the privilege and its application by various federal circuits and courts.

The community-of-interest privilege (in the 3rd Circuit) allows attorneys "representing different clients with similar legal interests to share information without having to disclose it to others."  In re Teleglobe Communc'ns Corp.,  493 F.3d 345, 364 (3d Cir. 2007).  "Alleged members of the community of interest must at least share a 'substantially similar legal interest,' that is not solely commercial.  Id. at 365. 

In King Drug Co. of Florence, Inc. v. Cephalon, Inc., Plaintiffs in a putative class action alleging violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act sought to compel discovery of certain communications between Defendant Barr Laboratories, Inc. ("Barr") and its supplier Chemagis.  (By way of background, Barr and other generic drug manufacturers entered into "reverse payment settlements" with pharmaceutical company Cephalon, Inc. in connection with the purchase of Provigil, and the King Drug Plaintiffs are challenging the reverse payment settlements).

Barr claimed that the 18 documents in question, which related to the settlement between Barr and Cephalon and how the settlement terms would affect Chemagis financially, were protected by the community-of-interest privilege.   Barr argued that the community-of-interest privilege applied because 1) Barr and Chemagis shared a substantially similar legal interest.(their joint development of a generic form of Provigil put them both at risk for an infringement suit by Cephalon); 2) Barr and Chemagis had entered into a "Joint Defense Agreement."

The Court disagreed, concluding that the communications between Barr and Chemagis were not "part of an ongoing, coordinated, legal defense strategy."  Therefore, even though it was not necessary for Chemagis to have been sued (it had not), and even though Barr and Chemagis had executed a "Joint Defense Agreement" that required Chemagis to share Barr's legal costs,  the two companies did not actually "establish an ongoing and coordinated legal defense."  Interestingly, the Court did not reach the issue of whether the joint interests of Barr and Chemagis were "legal" or "commercial," because even assuming those interests were "legal," "there never was a joint, coordinated and ongoing legal strategy."

Two cases from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina have addressed the community of interest privilege and applied the 4th Circuit's understanding of the privilege:  Duplan Corp. v. Deering Milliken Inc., 497 F.Supp. 1146 (D.S.C. 1974) (cited in King Drug), and Fort v. Leonard, 2006 WL 2708321 (D.S.C. 2006).  Fort emphasizes the flip side of the King Drug rationale, emphasizing that the demonstration of "a common interest" suffcient for the privilege to attach does not require a written or oral joint defense agreement. Duplan expresses the law of the 4th Circuit (a different test from that applied in the 3rd Circuit) that the persons seeking to demonstrate the privilege must have an "identical legal interest with respect to the subject matter of a communication between an attorney and a client concerning legal advice."  497 F.Supp. at 1172.  (Emphasis added).

Popular posts from this blog

What Authority the Principal Chose: Arredondo, POAs, and Arbitrability

Image
It was only a matter of time before arbitrability (the enforceability of an agreement to arbitrate) put a South Carolina courts in the position to construe the language in a power of attorney ("POA"). And this opinion did.  I try to view these decisions through the lens of how an attorney practicing in South Carolina might learn from them. And this decision, like some others involving the FAA and arbitrability, (for example, Grant v. Kuhn Chevrolet  or Herron v. Century BMW  , had the litigator and the drafter in me scratching my head.  Or at least I was confused until I learned about what had happened legislatively in the time since the POAs at issue in Arredondo were scrutinized by three (3) South Carolina courts. This decision, involving a POA executed before January 1, 2017, is likely an anomaly or a one-off, as going forward the S.C. Uniform Power of Attorney Act (SCUPOA) provides a guide for the creation of POAs that may avoid the necessity for so much judicial scruti
Read more

Legalized, But Regulated: Commercial Hemp in South Carolina

Image
On December 20, 2018 the Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018  (the "2018 Farm Bill") became law.  Following closely on the heels of the 2018 Farm Bill, on March 28, 2019 the South Carolina Hemp Farming Act  ("S.C. Hemp Farming Act") was signed into law.  The following is a brief overview of the status of hemp (also called "commercial hemp" or "industrial hemp") farming and regulation in South Carolina in the wake of the 2018 Farm Bill and the S.C. Hemp Farming Act. Background The terms "hemp" (which has non-drug connotations and uses) and "marijuana" (no further explanation necessary) describe the same plant genus: cannabis. The difference between the two is generally based on the relative amount of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) contained in the plant. Hemp plants are cultivated to produce fiber and seeds and very little if any THC. Marijuana plants, on the other hand, are cultivated to produce more THC. THC
Read more

The SC Insurance Data Security Act: Ask Some Questions to Evaluate Your Security Program

Image
The  South Carolina Insurance Data Security Act  (“Act”), fashioned after the  NAIC Insurance Data Security Model Law  (Model Law), went into effect on January 1, 2019. South Carolina was the first state in the nation to pass this legislation, and others (Ohio, Mississippi), have followed suit. The Act requires that each South Carolina person licensed or authorized by the South Carolina Department of Insurance (DOI) a “Licensee” must implement, no later than July 1, 2019, a “comprehensive written information security program” (“Program”) designed to protect nonpublic information (NPI) and the security of the Licensee’s information system. In addition, the Act requires a Licensee to report to the Director of the DOI within 72 hours following an actual or potential “cybersecurity event.” S.C. Code Section 38-99-40(A) (Section 6(A) of the Model Act). While South Carolina Licensees (hopefully) are well down the path to meeting the Act’s requirements, the following may be u
Read more