Waiving Atty / Client Priv...

[kmckenn]

What is the name of your state? Ohio, this is a Federal Case...

Scenario: Sexual Harasser @ work, sends hostile letter to a co-worker @ home because of unshared/frustrated sexual/romantic interests @ work. Employer obtains copy of the letter, fax's the letter to their in-house legal dept for advise on how to handle the matter. The letter is the spawn of the termination of both parties of the Sexual Harassment. The victim of the SH files suit against the employer, and requests (FRCP Rule 34) a copy of the letter of topic. The Defendant/Employer produces the copy of the letter that had been fax'd to the employers internal legal department, as is apparent by the fax header information of the sending and recv'ing fax #'s on the document produced.

Question: Would that disclosure of the FAX'd copy of that letter, as was part of the communication from one facility to that employers legal dept. constitute a waiver of communication privilge from that one facility where the SH occured, and the remote, internal legal dept?

 

[Quaere]

No! Not even close.

 

[Some Random Guy]

only with respect to the contents of that single letter and the acknowledgement that the fax occurred. Of course, your pawyer coult guide you through this. You aren't suing in federal court without a lawyer are you?

 

[kmckenn]

I have 5 different documents that were communicated tothe Defendants Legal Dept concerning this SH investigation. 3 that accompanied the Position Statement to the EEOC, and 2 that have been produced in Discovery, one of which was a post employment correspondence sent to me that was BC'd to "Legal", and the other/last that "letter".

 

[Some Random Guy]

And so long as you obtained those documents legally and according to proper procedures, you may use those documents in your suit.

If you think that this will magically give you access to the lawyers internal notes and communications, then you are mistaken.

 

[kmckenn]

The question is, at the time, communications with in-house "legal" in regards to the "investigation", have been disclosed, breaching that privilege, to those communications at that time, in that relationship, and NOT communications with outside counsel representing the Defendant in the pending action, in this case.

 

[Some Random Guy]

your definition of a question does not match mine.

Privilege was not breached, it was waived - in respect to those documents only. In the case if the CC'd letter, it never existed.

What was the question?