Preparing Witnesses for Deposition and Trial: Reconciling Demands of FRCP 26 and FRE 612 Protecting Attorney-Client Privilege and Navigating Work Product Challenges

Today’s faculty features:

1pm Eastern | 12pm Central | 11am Mountain | 10am Pacific

The audio portion of the conference may be accessed via the telephone or by using your computer's speakers. Please refer to the instructions emailed to registrants for additional information. If you have any questions, please contact Customer Service at 1-800-926-7926 ext. 10.

TUESDAY, JUNE 17, 2014

Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A

Steven C. Bennett, Partner, Park Jensen Bennett, New York

Teresa Rider Bult, Partner, Constangy Brooks & Smith, Nashville, Tenn.

Coby Cohen, Assistant General Counsel - Litigation & Employment, Knowledge Universe, Portland, Ore.

Tips for Optimal Quality

Sound Quality If you are listening via your computer speakers, please note that the quality of your sound will vary depending on the speed and quality of your internet connection. If the sound quality is not satisfactory, you may listen via the phone: dial 1-866-869-6667 and enter your PIN when prompted. Otherwise, please send us a chat or e-mail sound@straffordpub.com immediately so we can address the problem. If you dialed in and have any difficulties during the call, press *0 for assistance. Viewing Quality To maximize your screen, press the F11 key on your keyboard. To exit full screen, press the F11 key again.

FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY

Continuing Education Credits

For CLE purposes, please let us know how many people are listening at your location by completing each of the following steps:

• In the chat box, type (1) your company name and (2) the number of attendees at your location

• Click the SEND button beside the box

If you have purchased Strafford CLE processing services, you must confirm your participation by completing and submitting an Official Record of Attendance (CLE Form).

You may obtain your CLE form by going to the program page and selecting the appropriate form in the PROGRAM MATERIALS box at the top right corner.

If you'd like to purchase CLE credit processing, it is available for a fee. For additional information about CLE credit processing, go to our website or call us at 1-800-926-7926 ext. 35.

FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY

Program Materials

If you have not printed the conference materials for this program, please complete the following steps:

• Click on the ^ symbol next to “Conference Materials” in the middle of the left-hand column on your screen.

• Click on the tab labeled “Handouts” that appears, and there you will see a PDF of the slides for today's program.

• Double click on the PDF and a separate page will open.

• Print the slides by clicking on the printer icon.

FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY

Preparing Witnesses for Deposition and Trial: Reconciling The Demands of FRCP 26

and FRE 612

June 17, 2014

Strafford Publications

5

Disclaimers

• The views expressed are solely those of the presenters and should not be attributed to the presenters’ firms, companies or their clients.

• This presentation does not constitute legal advice, nor does it constitute solicitation of an attorney/client relationship.

6

Presenters

• Steven C. Bennett • Park Jensen Bennett LLP – New York, NY • sbennett@parkjensen.com

• Teresa Rider Bult • Constangy, Brooks & Smith, LLP – Nashville, TN • tbult@constangy.com

• C. N. Coby Cohen • Knowledge Universe Education LLC – Portland, OR • ccohen@klcorp.com

7

Agenda

• Privilege and work product protection under FRCP 26 • Purpose and Effect of FRE 612 • Informative Case Law under FRCP 26 and FRE 612 • Best practices for protecting privilege and work product in witness

preparation

8

Rule 26: Work Product

9

General Elements To Establish

Attorney-Client Privilege • Legal advice sought • From professional legal advisor in that capacity • Communications made for that purpose • In confidence • By the client • At the client’s instance permanently protected • Unless the privilege is waived • United States v. United Shoe Mach. Corp., 89 F. Supp. 357 (D. Mass.

1950)

10

Work Product Doctrine • Protects information created in anticipation of litigation – Generally, attorney’s mental processes – Specifically, memoranda, analyses, ideas, strategies, etc. that the

attorney creates or communicates • Can apply to consultants engaged by counsel • Unlike attorney-client privilege, both the attorney and the client can

claim it • Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)

11

Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947)

• Origin of work product protection • Concerned a tugboat accident and the statements of witnesses to

lawyers • Court held that work product protection was necessary, as it assists

lawyers in the proper preparation of their case, stating that lawyers must be able to work with “a certain degree of privacy, free from unnecessary intrusion by opposing parties and their counsel.” Id. at 510-11.

• Rather than disrupt the protection, the adverse party can conduct its own investigation through its own counsel

12

Distinction Between Fact and Opinion Work Product

• Fact work product is generally discoverable on a showing of “substantial need”

• “Core opinion” work product, namely work product that evidences attorney mental impressions, processes, strategy, etc., is subject to far greater protection and is generally immune from production

• See Hickman

13

FRCP 26 (a) (2) – Disclosure of Expert Testimony

• “(A) In General. In addition to the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1), a party must disclose to the other parties the identity of any witness it may use at trial to present evidence under Federal Rules of Evidence 702, 703 or 705.”

• The three Rules of Evidence apply to expert witness evidence, including testimony (Rule 702), the basis of expert opinions (Rule 703) and the facts and data underlying those opinions (Rule 705).

• Sections (B), (C), (D) and (E) establish rules concerning the preparation, distribution and supplementation of expert reports, as well as content of disclosures where reports are unnecessary.

14

FRCP 26(b)(3) –Work Product Protection

• “(A) Documents and Tangible Things. 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 (including the other party's attorney, consultant, surety, indemnitor, insurer, or agent). But, subject to Rule 26(b)(4), those materials may be discovered if:

• (i) they are otherwise discoverable under Rule 26(b)(1); and • (ii) the party shows that it has substantial need for the materials to prepare its

case and cannot, without undue hardship, obtain their substantial equivalent by other means.”

• Scope of discovery is broad, and this rule is liberally interpreted.

15

FRCP 26(b)(4)- Expert Trial Prep

• “(B) Trial-Preparation Protection for Draft Reports or Disclosures. Rules 26(b)(3)(A) and (B) protect drafts of any report or disclosure required under Rule 26(a)(2), regardless of the form in which the draft is recorded.”

• “(C) Trial-Preparation Protection for Communications Between a Party's Attorney and Expert Witnesses. Rules 26(b)(3)(A) and (B) protect communications between the party's attorney and any witness required to provide a report under Rule 26(a)(2)(B), regardless of the form of the communications, except to the extent that the communications:

• (i) relate to compensation for the expert's study or testimony; • (ii) identify facts or data that the party's attorney provided and that the expert considered in

forming the opinions to be expressed; or • (iii) identify assumptions that the party's attorney provided and that the expert relied on in

forming the opinions to be expressed.”

16

Attorney Communications With Expert May Be Part Of What Expert “Considered”

• Explanation of the case/what attorney wants • Documents selected for review • Comments on expert report drafts • Terms of engagement/limits/fees

• However, Rule 26(b)(4), since its modification in 2010, explicitly

protects most of these communications, except: • Communications about compensation • Communicated facts • Assumptions provided to the expert by the attorney and relied on by the expert

17

Documents Provided To Expert Lose Privilege

• Advisory Committee Notes: Documents provided are not privileged, even if expert does not rely on them

• Documents provided are subject to discovery. In re Omeprazole Patent Lit., 2005 WL 818821 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)

18

Documents Produced/Identified Must Relate To Expert’s Work

• Define by subject matter of report. See American S.S. Owners v. Alcoa S.S. Co., 2006 WL 212376 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)

• Must bear some “probative relationship” to expert’s opinion. See Oneida, Ltd. V. United States, 43 Fed. Cl. 611 (Fed. Cl. 1999)

19

Potential Problem Areas

• Expert begins as non-testifying consultant; then is asked to testify • Expert operates in firm that provides both testifying and consulting

service (for the same client) • Testifying expert relies on information from non-testifying consulting

expert, potentially subjecting the consulting expert to discovery

20

Amended Rule 26 (2010)

• Add/clarify disclosure requirements for experts for whom no report is required

• “Limit” disclosure to “facts and data” • Some work product protection for drafts and attorney-expert

communications

21

Purposes • Rule 26(a) amendments were proposed because:

– Many lawyers agree to not exchange drafts and communications in particular cases

– Access to drafts and communications often increase the expense of discovery, with minimal return (if any)

– The need to avoid reducing communications (and drafts) to writing complicates the attorney-expert working relationship and can increase cost

– The need for consulting experts increased with the introduction of the current rule in 1993, in order to insulate testifying experts, which creates inequities for clients that cannot afford two experts

– Attorneys are less willing to use experts who do not have prior testifying experience, for fear their attempts to train such expert to testify will be misconstrued

22

Text Changes

• 26(a)(2)(B)(ii) – Old Rule: “data or other information considered by the witness in

forming [all opinions]” – Revised Rule: “facts or data considered by the witness in forming

[all opinions]” – Comment to revised rule makes clear change intended to avoid

disclosure of drafts and at least some attorney-expert communications

23

Text Changes • 26(b)(4)(B)

– Draft reports and disclosures are protected as work product

– Applies to any testifying expert

• 26(b)(4)(C) – Communications between expert and attorney are protected as

work product – Applies only to experts required to provide a report – Three exceptions: compensation, facts considered,

and assumptions

24

Text Changes

• 26(a)(2)(C) – Provides for disclosure of certain information for experts not

subject to report requirements • Subject matter of evidence under 702, 703, or 705 • Summary of facts and opinions

– Comment suggests that disclosure need not include facts unrelated to expert opinions

25

Practical Implications • New rules only apply to federal cases.

• Consider stipulating with opposing counsel to apply a similar process in state court.

• Only communications with experts will receive work product protection.

• Attorney communications with testifying experts who do not prepare a report could be discoverable (if the testifying expert reviews their opinions, for instance), but generally remain protected as work product because they are consulting experts.

• Work product protection is not absolute. • Federal Rule of Evidence 612(b) still applies.

26

Practical Implications

• Segregate your discoverable communications with testifying experts, and carefully consider your communications with those experts.

• Failure to properly disclose a non Rule 26(a)(2)(B) testifying expert may result in exclusion of the expert’s testimony.

• The new federal rules do not change attorneys’ ethical duties.

27

Rule 612: Documents Used

to Refresh Recollection

28

FRE 612-Writing Used to Refresh Recollection

• “(a) This rule gives an adverse party certain options when a witness uses a writing to refresh memory: (1) while testifying; or (2) before testifying, if the court decides that justice requires the party to have those options.”

• “(b). . . [A]n adverse party is entitled to have the writing produced at the hearing, to inspect it, to cross-examine the witness about it, and to introduce in evidence any portion that relates to the witness’s testimony.

• If the producing party claims that the writing includes unrelated matter, the court must examine the writing in camera, delete any unrelated portion, and order that the rest be delivered to the adverse party. Any portion deleted over objection must be preserved for the record.”

29

Purpose of FRE 612 • Lawyers have a right to inquire into the credibility and memory of

witnesses • Concern about work product is evident in the Rule:

• Before hearing, “if justice requires” • Redact “unrelated matter” • Must be a “writing” specifically used to “refresh memory” (and not

simply any discussions with counsel) • The advisory committee's notes to Rule 612 also note that the limit to

testimony "is to safeguard against using the rule as a pretext for wholesale exploration of an opposing party's files and to insure that access is limited only to those writings which may fairly be said in fact to have an impact upon the testimony of the witness."

30

Practical Effect of FRE 612 • Evidence Rule 612 generally mandates the disclosure to the adverse

party of documents reviewed by a witness in preparation for testimony, sometimes even if they were protected work product

• There are risks that need to be considered in providing work product material to witnesses in preparation for testimony

31

Informative Cases

32

Republic of Ecuador v. Mackay (9th Cir. 2014)

• Part of a series of complex litigation between Chevron and Ecuador • Chevron was attempting to keep certain portions of expert reports and

information from disclosure, claiming the 2010 FRCP amendments were intended to broadly protect expert witness information

• Ninth Circuit rejected the argument and noted that “Rule 26(b)(3) does not provide presumptive protection for all testifying expert materials as trial preparation materials” Id. at *22

• Importantly, the Rules protecting mental processes “do not impede discovery about the opinions to be offered by the expert or the development, foundation or basis of those opinions” Id. at *21

• Discussions with counsel about potential relevance of facts or data or exploring hypothetical facts are protected, but tests conducted, facts considered, and notes created concerning same are subject to discovery

33

Spork v. Peil, 759 F.2d 312 (3d Cir. 1985) • Securities fraud class action

• Lawyer asked in discovery for “all documents examined, reviewed or referred to” in preparation for his deposition and moved to compel when they were not provided

• Third Circuit held that opinion work product “is accorded an almost absolute protection from discovery because any slight factual content that such items may have is generally outweighed by the adversary system’s interest in maintaining the privacy of an attorney’s thought processes and in ensuring that each side relies on its own wit in preparing their respective cases”

• Additionally, the court held that compilation of particular documents as important evidences an attorney’s mental processes, and thus is protected from disclosure—requesting all documents reviewed was thus improper

• Individual discoverable documents, on the other hand, are unprotected (but all documents at issue had been produced already in any event)

34

Audiotext Communications Network, Inc. v. U.S. Telecom, 164 F.R.D. 250, 252-53 (D. Kan. 1996)

• Court compelled disclosure of notebook reviewed by witness before deposition testimony

• Court noted that the “selecting and grouping of information does not transform discoverable documents into work product”

• Court held that Rule 612 explicitly overrides any privilege, including attorney-client privilege, that may otherwise exist, compelling disclosure

• Court also notes that “actual refreshment of recollection is immaterial” to requirement to produce under Rule 612

35

Aguinaga v. John Morrell & Co., 112 F.R.D. 671 (D. Kan. 1986)

• Similarly to the Spork court, the Aguinaga court held that a witness

could not be compelled to reveal what documents he had been shown in preparation for his deposition

• Rule 612 did not apply because questioning party already had access to the documents – only purpose behind to the question as to which documents had been shown would be to inform opposing side of “the attorneys’ process of selection and distillation of documents. Discovery would reveal nothing more than what documents the attorneys thought were relevant to the transactions”

36

United States v. 22.80 Acres of Land, 107 F.R.D. 20 (N.D. Cal. 1985)

• Government sought to keep an appraisal done by one of its employees from disclosure in a condemnation proceeding

• Court analyzed on Rule 26(b)(4) grounds (holding it didn’t apply because the employee wasn’t retained for the litigation) and 26(b)(3) grounds (holding it didn’t apply because the appraisal was prepared in the normal course of business)

• Court then said that the document also would have been required to have been produced under FRE 612 because it was used to refresh recollection before deposition testimony, waiving any protection that might have existed

• Court also noted that “courts must balance on a case-by-case basis, the competing interests present: the objective of full disclosure and ascertainment of the truth that Rule 612 and the federal discovery rules reflect, against the interest in maintaining the confidentiality of protected material, as is represented by the work product doctrine” Id. at 26

37

Parry v. Highlight Indus., Inc., 125 F.R.D. 449 (W.D. Mich. 1989)

• Court considered disclosure of work product protected materials under FRE 612 • Court noted that FRE 612 “does not expressly exempt privileged matter from

disclosure and, therefore, conflicts to some degree with Rule 26(b)(3).” Id. at 452 • Articulated a three part test to balance disclosure against public interest in

maintaining confidentiality of protected materials: • Whether witness “coaching” has occurred • Whether the document constituted factual or opinion work product • Whether the request constitutes a fishing expedition

• In applying the test, the court found that disclosure was unnecessary and that the documents constituted “core ‘opinion’ work product which is absolutely privileged against disclosure

38

Bogosian v. Gulf Oil Corp., 738 F.2d 587, 593, 595 n.3 (3d Cir. 1984) • Court noted that merely showing work product to a witness did not amount to

waiver of the work product protection, citing 3 J. Weinstein M. Berger, Weinstein's Evidence ¶ 612[04], at 612-41 to 612-42 (1982) in support of that position, and further that FRE 612 doesn’t override core work product protections

United States v. Sheffield, 55 F.3d 341, 343 (8th Cir. 1995) • Court held that a mere “glance” at a protected document may not waive

protection, and that the adverse party must make a showing that the review of the document “actually influenced” testimony

BUT COMPARE

In re Comair Disaster Litig., 100 F.R.D. 350, 353 (E.D. Ky. 1983) • A report made by the defendant’s investigator shortly after an airplane crash was

not protected from disclosure because the defendant’s engineer had reviewed the report before being deposed, providing a “substantial need” for the document to conduct reasonable cross examination; still case-by case question

39

Joseph Schlitz Brewing Co. v. Muller & Phipps (Hawaii) Ltd., 85 F.R.D. 118, 120 (W.D. Mo. 1980)

• Disclosure of work-product documents was not compelled when an attorney, prior to testifying, reviewed his own correspondence file.

• Without a showing that particular document had been consulted (and maybe not even then), the court was unwilling to invade opinion work product.

• Court reviewed legislative history of Rule 612 and noted it called for special discretionary safeguards against disclosure of opinion work product used in preparing to testify.

40

Nutramax Labs, Inc. v. Twin Labs, Inc., 183 F.R.D. 458 (D. Md. 1998)

• Nutramax court identified tests to be used to balance FRE 612 against work product protection. Three prong test of FRE 612 must be met:

• A witness must use a writing to refresh his or her memory • For the purpose of testifying • The court must determine that, in the interest of justice, the adverse party is entitled to

see the writing

• The third prong, determination in the interest of justice, has nine factors for consideration:

• Status of the witness • Whether the witness prepared the docs • Nature of the issue in dispute • Whether the documents reviewed contain • When the events took place “pure” attorney work product (strategy, etc.) • When the documents were reviewed • Were the documents previously produced • Number of documents reviewed • Are there credible concerns of spoliation

41

Best Practices for Protecting Work Product in Witness

Preparation

42

What Needs to Be Considered? • “Hobson’s Choice” – prepare witness without use of any documents or risk

disclosing your selection of documents to opposing counsel. • Problem: Ethical Rules:

• ABA Model Rule 1.3 – Diligence. “A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.”

• ABA Model Rule 3.3(a) - Candor Toward The Tribunal • A lawyer shall not knowingly. . .make a false statement of fact or law

to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer. . . Or offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false.”

• “A lawyer who did not prepare his or her witness for testimony, having had an opportunity to do so, would not be doing his or her professional job properly.” District of Columbia Bar, Ethics Opinion No. 79 (1979), p. 139.

43

Best Practices for Preparing your Witness • Only show documents to the witness or client that you don’t mind being revealed

to other side • Sticky issues usually come up with selection-based issues - when you are showing them a

notebook of documents – requiring production of the document itself shows the order you believe is important

• Show documents one at a time, in no particular order. Make sure documents you show have already been produced to other side and you don’t mind them seeing the documents

• Prep your witness how to answer the question, “what documents did you use to refresh your memory at deposition?”

• What about question, “what documents did you review to prepare for your deposition?”

• Can you object as invading attorney-client privilege or work product protection? • May depend on jurisdiction

• You can possibly “read” documents to witness without running afoul of rules (but this is perhaps getting too cute with the rules)

• You can discuss case strategy as it relates to the documents without disclosure

44

Best Practices if Taking Deposition

• If someone doesn’t produce information you believe they have reviewed to refresh recollection, your remedy is a motion to compel.

• Must lay proper foundation in deposition. • Up front identification of all the documents reviewed may be too broad and

protected by work product doctrine (though there is no harm in asking with additional follow-up)

• If you ask the witness about a particular topic and inquire whether the deponent reviewed any documents to refresh his recollection about that topic, if deponent says yes, you can require production of that document

45

Best Practices with Experts: Communication

• Discuss role of expert • Discuss process: – Information exchange – Report drafting – Discovery • Establish policy re: notes/communication with counsel • Understand that facts, assumptions given by counsel and fee

information is always disclosable • Beware “experienced” experts who don’t follow directions

46

Maintain Protection Of Consulting Expert

• Route directions through counsel • Mark documents “privileged” • Keep track for privilege review/log

47

Maintain Independence of Testifying Experts

• Expert should follow standard methods for inquiry • Attorney may describe available information, but expert chooses

what to review • Expert must be willing to defend opinion

48