# In Re Sealed Case

> Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · April 23, 1982 · 676 F.2d 793

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9469135

## Case

- **Full name:** In Re SEALED CASE
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
- **Decided:** April 23, 1982
- **Citations:** 676 F.2d 793; 219 U.S. App. D.C. 195; 10 Fed. R. Serv. 490; 33 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 1778; 50 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5637; 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 19872
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Wald
- **Judges:** Wright, Tamm, Wald, Wright'S
- **Cited by:** 407 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9469135

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that, while “selective disclosure” can be consistent with the purposes of the work- product privilege, “at some point acceptable tactics may degenerate into sharp practices inimical to a healthy adversary system”
- stating that the work product privilege protects any material obtained or prepared by a lawyer “in the course of his legal duties, provided that the work was done with an eye toward litigation.”
- discussing the purposes of the attorney-client and work-product privileges, and recognizing that “both have the same basic purpose: to promote broad public interests in the observance of law and the administration of justice” (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted)
- stating that “any voluntary disclosure by the client to a third party breaches the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship and therefore waives the privilege”
- noting that courts may “retain discretion not to impose full waiver as to all communications on the same subject matter where the client has merely disclosed a communication to a third party, as opposed to making some use of it”

## Opinion text

WALD, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in Parts I, II, IV and V of Judge Wright’s opinion as they relate to documents 2 and 3. Within the context of the SEC’s voluntary disclosure program, it would be inequitable to allow a corporation to foster the appearance of full disclosure, and later withhold records that are properly characterized as underlying documents of its report to the SEC. Documents 2 and 3 clearly fall within this category of underlying documents. Under the ground rules set up by appellant (“Company”), outside counsel was authorized to interview in-house counsel. In this interview, in-house counsel recounted discussions with top Company officials that are described in documents 2 and 3, and expressly agreed (in accordance with standard procedures) to hand over files relating to these discussions. Having relied on the appearance that all relevant documents were available to both outside counsel and SEC investigators, Company cannot now hide behind a cloak of privilege.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9469135. Public record. Not legal advice.