Protect Your Safety Investigations and Deliberations From Prying Eyes

13 November 2014 Dashboard Insights Blog

Every day companies deal with an ongoing safety analysis of their own products. These Safety Teams are routinely interdepartmental. The Safety Teams must consider design changes, manufacturing issues, potential recalls, potential claims or lawsuits and overall consumer safety. Sensitive information is always shared by the Safety Team. Companies believe (or hope) that the process, including any documents and information, is all confidential until a lawsuit ensues and much of the Safety Team’s work is revealed. What can you do to preserve the privilege? How do you safeguard this information? This is not an unusual scenario. However, it is one that companies routinely fail to protect themselves from.Useful privileges for Safety Teams are attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, and self-critical analysis or self-evaluation privilege. Attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine protect communications with attorneys and work done in anticipation of litigation, while the latter privilege is one that protects self-assessments to encourage candid, thorough safety risk examinations without fear of them negatively impacting subsequent litigation.

Regardless of the privilege used or the differing jurisdictional standards employed, the following steps will help manufacturers preserve privilege through proactive means before a claim arises.

  1. Counsel Leading the Team: In-house counsel should lead the teams, guiding the investigation. Teams undoubtedly serve practical and legal purposes; however, privilege is more likely to apply where there is a specific legal purpose. If challenged, the privileged items may undergo in-camera review by the Court; thus, the face of these documents should clearly indicate the legal purpose or legal advice sought. Something as simple as “I am seeking legal advice for…” can make a difference.
  2. Restricting Information to Necessary Individuals: The more the information is shared, the more non-lawyers on the “To” line of an email, the less likely that privilege will be found. Courts are leery of in-house counsel being added to emails in attempts to cloak non-privileged information in the appearance of privilege.
  3. Providing Substantive Legal Comments: Privilege is most likely to apply where in-house counsel provides substantive legal comments/advice.  comments of a non-legal nature will not cloak documents in privilege. Advice relayed in person or over the phone is fine, but if not reflected in privileged materials, courts may view the counsel’s advice as stylistic edits or practical advice any executive can perform. To the extent possible, business advice should be segregated from legal counseling or the legal connection should be obvious. To paraphrase one judge’s question when making a privilege determination, “would an executive with no legal training just as easily come to this conclusion?”
  4. Engaging Outside Counsel: Engaging outside counsel can change the dynamic of the privilege analysis quickly. Just as courts can be suspicious of in-house counsel’s multiple internal roles and the practice of copying them to “create privilege,” courts are just as deferential to finding privilege when outside counsel is involved. An outside perspective can be seen as more objective; furthermore, outside counsel tend to specialize in areas of the law and can better identify the various legal considerations at play.

Nothing guarantees the application of a privilege, but these prophylactic steps increase a company’s odds to protect its internal deliberations. Doing so will help to alleviate the threat and magnitude of possible product liability claims. For more strategies to proactively protect your company from product liability claims, read Preempting and Mitigating Product Liability Claims, a Practical Law Practice Note.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

A Review of Recent Whistleblower Developments
19 July 2019
Legal News: Whistleblower Developments
Cloud security inadequate for Cyber threats, are you surprised?
19 July 2019
Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog
Blockchain: A Tool With a Future in Healthcare
18 July 2019
Health Care Law Today
Do You Know What IMMEX Stands For?
16 July 2019
Dashboard Insights
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
2019 NDI Executive Exchange
14-15 November 2019
Chicago, IL
MAGI’s Clinical Research Conference
29 October 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Association for Corporate Counsel Annual Meeting 2019
27-30 October 2019
Phoenix, AZ