Category Archives: internal investigations

Sweeping Privilege Loss—Baylor Must Produce Documents From Sexual-Assault Investigation Reply

Attorney-Client Privilege, internal investigations, Waiver, Work Product Doctrine • Tags: , , , , , ,

In a significant ruling that may exacerbate the continuing fallout from Baylor University’s sexual-assault scandal—and provide lessons for those conducting internal investigations—the USDC WDTX rejected Baylor’s “unsupported and unconvincing” privilege argument and ordered it to produce “all materials, communications, and information” provided to its investigating law firm.

The court held that Baylor’s intentional release of the law firm’s factual findings and recommendations necessarily disclosed attorney–client communications and constituted privilege waiver.  Doe v. Baylor Univ., No. 16–CV–173–RP (W.D. Tex. Aug. 11, 2017).  You may read the opinion here.

The Huddle

In an earlier post titled Baylor Univ. in Major Battle over Law Firm’s Investigation Documents, I set the stage for the Title IX plaintiffs’ motion to compel Baylor to produce documents provided to Pepper Hamilton, which it retained to conduct an “independent and external review of Baylor University’s institutional responses to Title IX and related compliance issues.” More…

Baylor Univ. in Major Privilege Battle over Law Firm’s Investigation Documents

Attorney-Client Privilege, internal investigations, Waiver, Work Product Doctrine • Tags: , , , ,

A significant privilege affray is unfolding over Baylor University’s retention of the Pepper Hamilton law firm to investigate Baylor’s handling of sexual-assault complaints.

The question before the USDC in Waco is whether the attorney–client privilege protects from discovery Pepper Hamilton’s witness interviews and documents reviewed. The court’s upcoming decision may offer important lessons to organizations conducting internal investigations, including how to handle a post-investigation release of information.

You will recall that, following Pepper Hamilton’s investigation, Baylor fired its football coach, Art Briles, and demoted its president, Judge Kenneth Starr.  And while Pepper Hamilton prepared a list of “Recommendations,” available here, it did not deliver a formal written report of its investigation.  You may read more about the so-called “lack of a paper trail” in this New York Times article.

The plaintiffs in Jane Doe v. Baylor University, No. 6:16-cv-173-RP-JCM (USDC WD Tex.), a Title IX case, filed a motion to compel Baylor to “produce all materials provided to or produced by Pepper Hamilton.”  In essence, the plaintiffs seek a ruling that the attorney–client privilege does not protect the law firm’s investigation materials, and assert two arguments in support. More…

Parent Corp.’s GC Leads Investigation into Subsidiary’s Incident—Privileged?

Attorney-Client Privilege, In-House Counsel, internal investigations • Tags: , , , , ,

A Connecticut trial court held that the attorney–client privilege covers a defendant company’s investigation-related documents created at the direction of an in-house lawyer.  The court rendered the decision even though the in-house lawyer worked for the company’s parent corporation rather than the defendant company itself.  Blake v. Harvest New England, LLC, 2017 WL 1334287 (Conn. Super. Ct. Mar. 17, 2017).  You may read the decision here.

Corporate Structure

Harvest New England, LLC, a Delaware entity with its principal place of business in Connecticut, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Harvest Power, Inc., a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Massachusetts.  Matthew Vittiglio, licensed in Massachusetts, was “Vice President, Corporate Counsel,” or General Counsel, for Harvest Power—not the subsidiary.

Post-Accident Investigation

Following an automobile accident in Connecticut involving a driver–employee of the Connecticut LLC, the Massachusetts corporation’s General Counsel, Vittiglio, directed an investigation that led to the creation of two primary documents that would later become the subject of a privilege dispute. More…