Earlier this month, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania issued a decision that has broad implications for the manner in which Pennsylvania lawyers and their clients communicate with outside consultants, including environmental consultants. In BouSamra v. Excela Health, No. 1637 WDA 2015, 2017 PA Super 235 (July 19, 2017), the Superior Court held that a company waived the attorney-client privilege when it forwarded an email containing legal advice to one of its consultants, a public relations firm. The decision calls into question whether outside consultants should be involved in privileged legal discussions unless the consultant is actively involved in facilitating legal advice from counsel to client. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Discovery, Privilege

One of the finest lines that environmental attorneys walk is in protecting communications between counsel and a retained environmental consultant from disclosure in litigation.  In a recent case out of the Northern District of Indiana, Valley Forge Ins. Co. v. Hartford Iron & Metal, Inc., No. 1:14-cv-00006 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 14, 2017), the Court found that communications between counsel and consultants retained by the counsel  were not protected by the attorney-client privilege, in large part because the consultants also performed remedial work.  However, as the work was done "in anticipation of litigation" with, among others, the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) and EPA, substantive communications were protected by the attorney work product doctrine.   Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Attorney-Client, Cleanup, Contamination, Discovery, EPA, Federal Procedure, Indiana, Insurance, Insurance Coverage, Privilege, Procedure, Remediation, Stormwater, Work Product

On Friday, the Pennsylvania Superior Court issued a non-precedential opinion that affirmed a trial court’s order denying objections filed by natural gas drilling company, Range Resources-Appalachia, LLC, to a subpoena issued to one of its engineering consultants, URS Corp. The case, Haney v. Range Resources-Appalachia, LLC, et al., No. 2012-3534, involves personal injury and property damage claims filed by a group of residents that live near Range’s Yeager natural gas drilling site in Washington County, Pennsylvania.   Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Air, Discovery, Expert Witness, Marcellus Shale, Natural Gas, Oil and Gas, Pennsylvania, Privilege, Work Product

In general, when a party shares communications or information protected by the attorney-client or work product privilege with a third party, the privilege is waived.  However, in many jurisdictions, if this sharing occurs when there is anticipated or actual litigation, a “common interest” exception allows parties to disclose privileged information amongst themselves while still preserving the privilege against disclosure to their adversaries.  On Monday, the New Jersey Supreme Court in O’Boyle v. Boro. of Longport, No. A-16-12, 2014 WL 355874 (N.J., July 21, 2014), expressly adopted this “common interest” rule (also often referred to as the “joint defense privilege”) so that parties to litigation in New Jersey can share privileged communications and information without the risk of destroying the underlying privilege.  Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Attorney-Client, Decisions of Note, New Jersey, OPRA, Privilege, Work Product

I love dissents.  While majority opinions focus on legal analysis, as they should, dissents tell the story, because it is usually only in the context of the story that the legal analysis of the majority can be directly attacked.  Such is the case with the recent en banc decision by the Pennsylvania Superior Court in Barrick v. Holy Spirit Hospital, 2011 Pa. Super. 251 (2011).  But more on the dissent later. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Cases to Watch, Decisions of Note, Discovery, Expert Witness, Privilege, Work Product