find the latest legal job
Corporate Counsel and Company Secretary
Category: Generalists - In House | Location: Newcastle, Maitland & Hunter NSW
· Highly-respected, innovative and entrepreneurial Not-for-Profit · Competency based Board
View details
Chief Counsel and Company Secretary
Category: Generalists - In House | Location: Newcastle, Maitland & Hunter NSW
· Dynamic, high growth organisation · ASX listed market leader
View details
In-house Projects Lawyer | Renewables / Solar | 2-5 Years PQE
Category: Generalists - In House | Location: All Australia
· Help design the future · NASDAQ Listed
View details
Corporate Lawyer
Category: Generalists - In House | Location: Melbourne CBD & Inner Suburbs Melbourne VIC
· 12 months fixed term opportunity
View details
Property lawyer - Melbourne
Category: Property Law | Location: Melbourne CBD & Inner Suburbs Melbourne VIC
· Impressive client list, national firm · Well-led and high-performing team
View details
US Court orders law firm to surrender ‘privileged’ emails

US Court orders law firm to surrender ‘privileged’ emails

IN AN interesting twist to what seems like an ordinary employment stoush before New Zealand’s employment courts, a US federal court has ordered the release of nearly 200 allegedly ‘privileged’…

IN AN interesting twist to what seems like an ordinary employment stoush before New Zealand’s employment courts, a US federal court has ordered the release of nearly 200 allegedly ‘privileged’ emails.

In copying the emails to New Zealand employment advocate Matthew Young of Employment Associates Limited, US District Court Judge Stanley R Chesler held that New Jersey law firm Riker, Danzig, Scherer, Hyland & Perretti LLP (Riker Danzig) had waived attorney-client privilege in respect of their mutual client New Zealander Warren Tobin.

In Stayinfront Inc v Tobin, His Honour upheld the decision of US Magistrate Judge Patty Shwartz ordering Riker Danzig to discover privileged emails subpoenaed by the plaintiffs, Stayinfront Inc and Nap Associates LLC. The emails in question were exchanged between Tobin, Riker Danzig, and Young in respect of a New Jersey case between Tobin and his former employer, Stayinfront.

In 2003, Tobin brought an action against Stayinfront in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County, seeking to enforce his rights under a stock purchase and severance agreement. The matter appeared to settle in August 2004, but Tobin brought an action against Stayinfront in New Zealand’s Employment Relations Authority (ERA), claiming he was coerced to enter into the settlement agreement. Young, a lay advocate, was engaged by Tobin in relation to the ERA claim.

The matter was dismissed in August 2005, and shortly thereafter, Stayinfront launched its claims against Tobin, Young, and Employment Associates Limited in the Superior Court of New Jersey. It brought a claim against Tobin for breach of contract (it claimed Tobin breached a covenant not to sue contained in the stock purchase and severance agreement), and a claim of tortious interference with contract against Young and Employment Associates on the grounds they had allegedly induced Tobin to bring the New Zealand action. The matter was removed to the US District Court of New Jersey (on diversity grounds), where Tobin filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. When Tobin and the other defendants failed to provide court-ordered discovery, the Court entered a default judgment against them as a sanction for their refusal to participate in discovery and in response to their statement that they would no longer participate in the case.

Having obtained a default judgment, Stayinfront sought discovery of documents held by Riker Danzig in order to prove its claim for damages. Riker Danzig refused to release a number of emails on the grounds they were subject to attorney-client privilege.

The issue before the Court was whether the emails sent to Young were still privileged. Under the Employment Relations Act 2000, communications between the party to the proceeding and his or her lay advocate will be privileged. However, the US Court held such privilege was limited to the action before the ERA. The emails related to the New Jersey action and not the New Zealand ERA action. As such, the magistrate judge found that “the failure to assert that these documents are related to the New Zealand employment litigation is fatal to the privilege claim because … the New Zealand lay advocate privilege is limited to communications directly related to issues involved in the New Zealand employment dispute”.

Like this story? Read more:

QLS condemns actions of disgraced lawyer as ‘stain on the profession’

NSW proposes big justice reforms to target risk of reoffending

The legal budget breakdown 2017

US Court orders law firm to surrender ‘privileged’ emails
lawyersweekly logo
Promoted content
Recommended by Spike Native Network
more from lawyers weekly
Warning
Aug 23 2017
NT Law Society sounds alarm on mandatory sentencing
The Law Society Northern Territory has issued a warning over mandatory sentencing, saying it hasn’...
Unite
Aug 22 2017
Professionals unite in support of marriage equality
The presidents of representative bodies for solicitors, barristers and doctors in NSW have come toge...
Aug 21 2017
Is your firm on the right track for gig economy gains?
Promoted by Crowd & Co. The way we do business, where we work, how we engage with workers, ev...
APPOINTMENTS
Allens managing partner Richard Spurio, image courtesy Allens' website
Jun 21 2017
Promo season at Allens
A group of lawyers at Allens have received promotions across its PNG and Australian offices. ...
May 11 2017
Partner exits for in-house role
A Victorian lawyer has left the partnership of a national firm to start a new gig with state governm...
Esteban Gomez
May 11 2017
National firm recruits ‘major asset’
A national law firm has announced it has appointed a new corporate partner who brings over 15 years'...
opinion
Nicole Rich
May 16 2017
Access to justice for young transgender Australians
Reform is looming for the process that young transgender Australians and their families must current...
Geoff Roberson
May 11 2017
The lighter side of the law: when law and comedy collide
On the face of it, there doesn’t seem to be much that is amusing about the law, writes Geoff Rober...
Help
May 10 2017
Advocate’s immunity – without fear or without favour but not both
On 29 March 2017, the High Court handed down its decision in David Kendirjian v Eugene Lepore & ...