United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
PHILIP M. FRAZIER, Magistrate Judge.
This matter comes before the court on Relator's oral motion to compel production of documents. A discovery dispute conference was held on May 15, 2014. See Doc. 157. Ruling was reserved on three distinct sets of documents. See id. This order addresses the following two of the three sets of documents, both of which have been inspected in camera.
A. Data Compiled in Response to 2009 OIG HHS Subpoena
In 2009, the Office of the Inspector General ("OIG") for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS") began conducting an investigation into possible improper claims submitted to Medicare by K-Mart Corporation. The OIG office in Santa Ana, California issued a subpoena ("OIG subpoena") on April 20, 2009. K-Mart hired the law firm of Greenberg Taurig, LLP to facilitate its response to the OIG subpoena. Greenberg Taurig helped K-Mart secure an agreement with OIG stating that "confidential proprietary" business information would be protected; the standard type of confidential business information typically kept confidential in discovery by a protective order under Rule 26(c)(G) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
In response to the OIG subpoena, K-Mart collected, reviewed, and produced more than 8, 400 documents from 25 custodians. Greenburg Taurig attorneys also created and produced a subset of transactional data in an easier-to-understand format. Greenburg Taurig attorney Jeffrey W. Greene recalled in the discovery dispute conference that the primary motivation behind creating the subset was to appear cooperative in order to hopefully obtain a more favorable result in the investigation so that K-Mart would not ultimately have to make expenditures of money to defend a case brought against it by the federal government. K-Mart also withheld many documents from OIG on the basis of attorney-client privilege and work product protection.
In this case, K-Mart has turned over its entire response to the 2009 OIG subpoena to Relator in discovery, except for 1) the documents it also withheld from the government on the basis of attorney-client privilege and work product protection and 2) the subset of transactional data it gave to the government in the alternative format. The subset of transactional data is at issue here. Relator argues that any attorney work product protection has been forfeited by its disclosure to the government. K-Mart urges the court to find that the doctrine of "selective waiver" applies, and the subset of transactional data should remain protected in this case as attorney work product.
Federal courts have long recognized the "strong public policy underlying the work-product doctrine, " which has been incorporated into Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(3). Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 398, 101 S.Ct. 677, 687, 66 L.Ed.2d 584 (1981) (citing United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 236-240, 95 S.Ct. 2160, 2169-2171, 45 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975)). "Ordinarily, a party may not discover documents and tangible things that are prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or its representative..." FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(3). The work product doctrine serves the interests of clients, the cause of justice, and the legal profession by protecting from disclosure to an adverse party the written statements, private memoranda, and personal recollections prepared or formed by an attorney. Upjohn, 449 U.S. at 397.
While the court certainly must guard against the unwarranted disclosure attorney work product, it is also incumbent upon the attorneys anticipating or involved in litigation to take appropriate steps to closely guard confidential information. "Knowing disclosure to a third party almost invariably surrenders the privilege with respect to the world at large..." Burden-Meeks v. Welch, 319 F.3d 897, 899 (7th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted). "[I]t is well-established that the work product privilege may be waived by disclosures to third parties "in a manner which substantially increases the opportunity for potential adversaries to obtain the information." Lawrence E. Jaffe Pension Plan v. Household Int'l, Inc., 244 F.R.D. 412, 419 (N.D. Ill. 2006) (citations omitted).
Here, K-Mart's attorneys knowingly and voluntarily turned over the subset of transactional prepared in response to the 2009 OIG subpoena in order to obtain a more favorable outcome in the OIG investigation. While K-Mart may not have been aware of a pending False Claims Act case at this time (the case was filed under seal in 2008), it would not have been a stretch to conclude that the subset of data was prepared in anticipation of criminal or civil litigation brought by the federal government. For this reason, the data subset likely met the requirements for work product protection prior to its disclosure to the government. The only question that remains is whether K-Mart forfeited protection of the data by its disclosure to an adverse party.
K-Mart urges the court to find that it "selectively waived" work product production to the federal government, and that the data should remain protected from disclosure from Relator. K-Mart claims the law of this circuit supports such a "selective waiver" doctrine. In 2003, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals arguably rejected the selective waiver doctrine when it stated that "[k]nowing disclosure to a third party almost invariably surrenders the privilege with respect to the world at large; selective disclosure is not an option. " Burden-Meeks, 319 F.3d at 899 (emphasis added) (citing Dellwood Farms, Inc. v. Cargill, Inc., 128 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (7th Cir. 1997); United States v. Hamilton, 19 F.3d 350, 353 (7th Cir. 1994)). The Burden-Meeks decision acknowledges that only one other court of appeals recognizes that selective disclosure does not always waive confidentiality but that the "majority view is otherwise." See id. (citing Diversified Industries, Inc. v. Meredith, 572 F.2d 596 (8th Cir. 1977) (en banc) as court of appeals permitting selective waiver and In re Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp. Billing Practices Litigation, 293 F.3d 289, 307-14 (6th Cir. 2002) as court of appeals rejecting it).
Although Burden-Meeks seemingly rejects the selective waiver doctrine ("selective disclosure is not an option"), it cites the Dellwood Farms decision (a selective waiver case) without expressly overruling it. See id. That case held that government did not waive its law enforcement investigatory privilege when plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit subpoenaed audiotapes that government attorneys played to a law firm representing Archer Daniels Midland's ("ADM") outside directors (without obtaining a confidentiality agreement) in connection to a criminal case(s) against them. See Dellwood Farms, 128 F.3d at 1127-28. The audiotapes were presumably played by government attorneys to adduce a guilty verdict, and the plaintiffs in a class action suit argued that the government waived confidentiality by playing the audiotapes to a third-party. See id. at 1124. Writing for the majority, Chief Judge Posner examined the reasons why courts have been unwilling to permit selective waiver, such as impeding the search for the truth, "a fear that selective disclosure will be used to obtain a strategic advantage, and puzzlement why if the information is really confidential it was disclosed except for some nefarious strategic purpose." See id. at 1127. In the end, Chief Judge Posner concluded that none of these reasons applied to the facts and circumstances of the Dellwood Farms case primarily because the government was not an adversary of the class action plaintiffs, "using coy disclosure to gain litigating leverage over them." See id.
Because the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has seemingly left open the possibility of selective waiver, district courts in this circuit have found it permissible to find selective waiver in some circumstances. See, e.g., Jaffe, 244 F.R.D. at 433 (N.D. Ill. 2006) (finding that selective waiver may be appropriate where the disclosing party took steps to preserve its privilege). In Jaffe, Household, a bank, voluntarily disclosed confidential attorney documents to the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in connection to a securities fraud investigation. See id. Prior to disclosure, Household and the SEC entered into a confidentiality agreement that expressly stated that "neither the Committee nor Household intend to waive the protections of the attorney work product doctrine, attorney-client privilege, or any other privilege applicable as to third parties." Id. Based on the confidentiality agreement, the court concluded in Jaffe that the Household took appropriate steps to preserve the confidentiality of attorney documents and denied a motion to compel. See id.
The court has reviewed the subset of transactional data in camera and grants Relator's oral motion to compel. Although the facts of this case are similar to circumstances in Jaffe, this case is distinguishable. In Jaffe, Household and the SEC entered into a confidentiality agreement that expressly protected attorney work product. See id. K-Mart points out that it also entered into a confidentiality agreement with OIG prior to its 2009 production in response to the OIG subpoena. A copy of the 2009 confidentiality agreement was submitted at May 15 discovery dispute conference. It appears that the purpose of this agreement, however, was not to protect attorney work product. Unlike the agreement in Jaffe, the words "attorney", "work product", or "privilege" do not appear anywhere in the agreement. Rather, the agreement appears to be targeting the type of sensitive business information typically protected in discovery by Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Even if the court could align this case with Jaffe, application the selective waiver doctrine is not appropriate in this case. It is clear that the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals does not look favorably upon the selective waiver doctrine. See Burden-Meeks, 319 F.3d at 899. Although Dellwood Farms stands for the possibility of selective waiver in some limited circumstances, the present case is distinguishable. Unlike the Relator in this case, the class action plaintiffs in Dellwood Farms were not attempting to compel production of documents from an adversary. See Dellwood Farms, 128 F.3d at 1127. Here, both the federal government and Relator are adversaries of K-Mart under essentially the same circumstances. K-Mart should not be permitted to "pick and choose" to which ...