Attorney-Client Privilege Did Not Attach With Ploy Of Routing Documents Through an Attorney

In the case of HU.S. v. CVS ealth Corp., No. 2:16-CV-01582-GAM (E.D. Pa. Aug. 15, 2024 McHugh, J.), the court addressed the applicability of the attorney-client privilege asserted against discovery requests in a civil litigation matter involving an action against the retail pharmacy chain.

After reviewing the documents in question and concluding that a majority of the communications did not relate to any legal advice or questions that required the information to be identified as privileged, the court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the production of the documents in question.

According to the Opinion, the documents at issue, involve business communications over CVS’ shipping processes.

The court noted that the broad claim of attorney client privilege asserted by the Defendant was not proper in this case given that such protections are not automatically provided simply because documents may be routed through an attorney. The court reiterated that the documents at issue did not contain or reflect legal advice or request for legal advice and did not provide any indication that they were prepared in anticipation of litigation of any kind.

Judge McHugh noted that the “ploy” of using an attorney as an intermediary with another party for what is clearly an exchange of business information should not be endorsed by a court to serve as a means for a party to assert the attorney client privilege.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Source: “Article – Federal Judge Rejects CVS’ Attorney-Client Privilege Claims, Orders Retailer To Turn Over Communications In Qui Tam Action,” By Riley Brennan The Legal Intelligencer (Aug. 15, 2024).