Laserfiche WebLink
attorney (U. S. v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 89 F. Supp. 357 [D. Mass, <br />1950]). Ordinarily, the information in question must come from within the <br />government. (U.S. v. Anderson, 34 F.R.D. 518 [D. Colo, 1963]). <br />The privilege extends to communications: <br />a) from the agency to the agency attorney; <br />b) from the agency to attorneys in two separate agencies <br />representing the agency; <br />c) from an agency to another agency acting as attorney for the <br />first agency (Thill Securities Corp. v. N.Y. Stock <br />Exchange, 57 F.R.D. 133 [1972]; U.S. v. Gates, 35 F.R.D. <br />524 [1964]); and <br />d) between attorneys respresenting a single client or from the <br />attorney to his client if the communication is based on the <br />original confidential information communicated by the <br />client. (Insur. of N.A. v. Union Carbide Corp., 35 F.R.D. <br />520 [D. Colo, 1964]). <br />WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGE <br />Although the "work product" privilege applies only to material which is <br />legal in nature, prepared by an attorney, relating to specific litigation and <br />confidential (not communicated to or from outsiders), there is an excepted <br />area covered that involves expert witnesses. This exception is the so-called <br />"written memory" rule; a major exception receives only a qualified immunity. <br />If substantial need under Rule 26(b) (3) F.R.C.P. can be demonstrated, <br />together with a showing of due hardship in obtaining the material through <br />other means, the court will permit discovery.2 <br />CONCLUSIONS <br />No rigid distinction can be drawn in the above discussion between trials <br />in courts and administrative proceedings because lawyers have used increasing- <br />ly the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to obtain those documents discover- <br />able under court rules. Having complied with the mechanical requirements of <br />43 CFR Part 2, such as making a request in writing at the right office, a <br />party is entitled to review and copy materials subject to some exceptions. <br />2 It should be noted that the requirement to show "good cause" under <br />Rule 34 F.R.C.P. (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) to obtain produc- <br />tion of documents was deleted by the 1970 amendment to the rules, <br />"relevance" being the general guide to production after that date. <br />10