Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.


Communications Between DOJ Attorneys Representing Separate Agencies Ordered Disclosed

Steven Siros   By Steven M. Siros, Partner, Jenner & Block

DOJ attorneys representing the United States Army Corps of Engineers (the "Corps") and the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") found themselves unable to rely on the attorney work product, attorney-client, or deliberative process privileges to avoid disclosure of internal communications relating to a pending CERCLA consent decree.  In Menasha Corporation, et al. v. United States Department of Justice (E.D. Wis. 2012), plaintiffs filed FOIA requests seeking disclosure of communications between the Corps and EPA relating to a consent decree, including communications between DOJ attorneys representing the two government entities.  The DOJ argued that it was entitled to withhold disclosure of these attorney communications pursuant to the above-mentioned three privileges.  Plaintiffs argued that the DOJ lawyers represented separate client agencies with adverse interests in the litigation and that a party's disclosure of privileged communications to an adverse party typically waives the applicable privilege.

The court agreed, noting that EPA (in its enforcement capacity) and the Corps (as a PRP) are Executive Branch agencies with competing interests.  According to the court, "attorneys who represent parties with adverse interests waive attorney-client and work product privileges as to documents they willingly share with their adversaries."  The court found DOJ's argument that it represented a single client, the United States, unavailing.  Here, DOJ's Environmental Enforcement Section is responsible for coordinating enforcement efforts whereas the Environmental Defense Division is responsible for coordinating defense litigation strategies.  Because the United States has competing interests in this case, it properly had separate counsel from the Enforcement Section and the Defense Division independently representing the interests of both respective agencies.  However, because the interests of these two agencies were adverse, the court found that communications between them were not privileged and had to be disclosed.

This decision will have obvious implications at any site where there is a government agency PRP.  It might also cause DOJ lawyers to be more careful with respect to internal communications.  A free copy of this decision can be accessed here: Menasha Corporation, et al. v. United States Department of Justice (E.D. Wis. 2012). subscribers can access the Lexis enhanced version of the Menasha Corp. v. United States DOJ, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8937 (E.D. Wis. Jan. 25, 2012) decision with case law links, core terms, and Shepard's.

Steven M. Siros is a partner at Jenner & Block and focuses his practice primarily on environmental and toxic tort matters.  Corporations seek his counsel on complex CERCLA and RCRA matters and cases involving toxic tort and natural resource damages.  He counsels policyholders in insurance coverage disputes relating to environmental issues, advises on regulatory compliance issues, and assists clients on a variety of climate change and sustainability issues.  He also manages the environmental aspects of numerous real estate and corporate transactions and helps clients perform environmental compliance audits at facilities around the world.

Read more at Corporate Environmental Lawyer Blog by Jenner & Block LLP.

The Corporate Environmental Lawyer Blog is a 2011 LexisNexis Top 50 Blogs for Environmental Law & Climate Change winner.

For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions, connect with us through our corporate site.

Attorney and Client