In GeoMetWatch Corp. v. Hall, “[t]he question of whether common defence agreements are likely to be discovered or protected by the privilege of common defence is bandwidth.” Case No. 1:14-cv-60-JNP-PMW, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91274, at `5 (D. Utah, July 12, 2016). The Tribunal cited decisions finding that “common defence agreements are effectively protected by the privilege of the common defence,” but also found that “the courts have established that common defence agreements are not protected by that privilege.” Id. at 5-6. The Tribunal ultimately concluded that “common defence agreements are not relevant to the parties` respective claims and/or defences” in the compensation dispute case. Id.
at 7. Weissman invoked the common privilege of the defence to ensure that his own confessions were not used against him. To prove his right to privilege, Weissman`s lawyer stated that at the beginning of the meeting he had asked the business advisor to agree to the meeting being held in accordance with a JDA. According to Weissman`s lawyer, the lawyer agreed. However, the business advisor had another recollection of the meeting and explained that there was never any mention of jDA. In the Tribunal`s view, the disclosure of the corridors did not serve the interests that justified the privilege. For example, communications were made outside the presence of a lawyer (although, as the court found, the lawyers were nearby) and were not made for the purpose of providing legal advice. The court simply characterized these communications as “a discussion of having a JDA member pass on his independent and non-legal research to another JDA member, while finding that he had sent the same research to his lawyer.” [9] In addition, the court stated that “the mere fact that the communications took place among the co-accused who had joined a common defence agreement was not sufficient to protect the statements from disclosure.” In response to the question of whether agreements of common interest can be concluded, questions of relevance and privilege arise. A federal court recently rejected the discovery of the agreement of three defendants in the common interest and did so when the three accused had negative interests that “may give rise to future litigation between them.” Wausau Underwriters Ins. C.
v. Reliable Transp. Specialists, Inc., 2018 WL 4235077 (ED MI September 6, 2018). Read the judge`s opinion here and here the opinion confirming the district judge. No good discussion about the JDAs begins without first discussing the doctrine of the common interest; A concept that breathes life into all JDAs. The teaching of the common interest (sometimes called the common privilege of the defence) is an extension of solicitor-client privilege.