Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
19. How should the court rule on the woman's claim of waiver of privilege?
Although the manufacturer learned of the disclosure during the discovery period, it did not seek the return of the two documents until the day before trial. In response, the woman claimed that the manufacturer had waived the attorney-client privilege as to all 25 documents, including the 23 that had not been turned over.
A woman brought a products liability action against a drug manufacturer in federal court under state law, claiming that the manufacturer had failed to warn that an arthritis drug caused severe hair loss in female patients. In discovery, the manufacturer inadvertently turned over to the woman two documents reflecting communications between the manufacturer's president and its counsel regarding the drug's possible side effects. There were 23 other, similar documents reflecting such communications that were not turned over in discovery.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
A is incorrect. Under FRE 502(b), an inadvertent disclosure will not operate as a waiver of the attorney-client privilege if the holder of the privilege «promptly [takes] reasonable steps to rectify the error.» Here, the manufacturer learned of the disclosure during discovery but waited until the day before trial to rectify the error. Its response was not «prompt,» and therefore the disclosure operates as a waiver as to the two documents that were disclosed.
C is incorrect. Under FRE 502(a), because the disclosure was inadvertent, the waiver does not extend to undisclosed communications (the other 23 documents) even if they concern the same subject matter.
D is incorrect. FRE 502 applies to «disclosure[s]. .. made in a federal proceeding.» Thus, state law does not apply, even when federal jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship.