Superman Case Unable to Save Selective Waiver Theory

by Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP

In In re Pacific Pictures Corp., No. 11-71844, 2012 WL 1293534 (9th Cir. Apr. 17, 2012), a dispute concerning royalties derived from the character of Superman, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals joined a majority of circuit courts eliminating the possibility of selective waiver. The theory of selective waiver would allow a party to claim attorney-client privilege, where applicable, over a document that it had previously produced to the government.  Generally, voluntarily producing the document as part of a government investigation would constitute waiver of any privilege attached to that document, and the party could be forced to produce it in subsequent civil litigation.  Under selective waiver, though, a party is free to produce documents to the government, and gain credibility through cooperation, without risking possible exposure in future civil litigation.  The only federal court of appeals to recognize selective waiver is the Eighth Circuit.  Its failure to gain wider acceptance means that businesses in highly-regulated industries must consider all collateral consequences when deciding what, if any, privilege to waive when responding to government subpoenas.  

Selective waiver originated in Diversified Indus. v. Meredith, 572 F.2d 596 (8th Cir. 1978).   There, the court considered “whether Diversified waived its attorney-client privilege with respect to the privileged material by voluntarily surrendering it to the SEC pursuant to an agency subpoena.”  Id. At 611.  The plaintiff there had produced a report performed by outside counsel as part of an SEC investigation, but claimed attorney-client privilege over the same report in subsequent civil litigation.  The court found that “[a]s Diversified disclosed these documents in a separate and nonpublic SEC investigation, we conclude that only a limited waiver of the privilege occurred.”  Id.  The court reasoned  that “[t]o hold otherwise may have the effect of thwarting the developing procedure of corporations to employ independent outside counsel to investigate and advise them in order to protect stockholders, potential stockholders, and customers.” Id.

The Pacific Pictures court referred to the Diversified court’s decision as a “cursory analysis”  2012 WL 1293534 at *4, and as the Pacific Pictures court noted, no other circuit courts followed suit in recognizing the theory, leaving the Eighth Circuit in a proverbial fortress of solitude.1

In Pacific Pictures, the party claiming privilege had not been an unwilling target of a government investigation.  There, litigation had been proceeding over royalties from Superman media for years between D.C. Comics and the heirs of Superman’s creators, along with the heirs’ business partner, Marc Toberoff.  While the litigation was pending, David Michaels, a lawyer in Toberoff’s employ, absconded with certain documents related to the case.  Toberoff then “asked the Office of the United States Attorney for the Central District of California to investigate Michaels.” 2012 WL 1293534 at *2.   In response, the U.S. Attorney undertook the investigation and subpoenaed certain documents from Toberoff.  Along with the subpoena, the government stated in a letter to Toberoff that it would not provide the documents at issue “‘to nongovernmental third parties except as may be required by law or court order.’”  Id.  “Armed with this letter, Toberoff readily complied with the subpoena, making no attempt to redact anything from the documents.”  Id.  Upon that production, D.C. Comics immediately demanded that the same documents be produced in the civil case.

The Pacific Pictures court determined that the principle of selective waiver “does little, if anything, to serve the public good underpinning the attorney-client privilege,” because its main effect is to promote cooperation with the government rather than to preserve the possibility a client obtaining informed legal advice from his counsel.  Id. at *4.  The court was silent as to selective waiver’s general impact on truth, justice and the American way.  The court noted, “If we were to unmoor a privilege from its underlying justification, we would at least be failing to construe the privilege narrowly.  And more likely, we would be creating an entirely new privilege.”  Id. (internal citations omitted). 

The court noted it was not beyond its power to create a new privilege, but that, “Put simply, the balance of conflicting interests of this type is particularly a legislative function.  Since Diversified, there have been multiple legislative attempts to adopt a theory of selective waiver. Most have failed.”  2012 WL 1293534 at *4 (internal quotations omitted).  The court cited to the 2007 Report of the Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules; as part of that Committee’s effort to amend the federal rules of evidence, it had attempted to integrate a provision applying for selective waiver in the Diversified mold.  However, the Committee ultimately dropped that provision from its proposed amendment, opting instead to report a proposed selective waiver provision separately.  After this decision, the selective waiver provision failed to gain any traction and was never integrated into the federal rules.  The Pacific Pictures court concluded, “Given that Congress has declined broadly to adopt a new privilege to protect disclosures of attorney-client privileged materials to the government, we will not do so here.”  Id.

Toberoff had argued that, apart from a general principle of selective waiver, the fact that he produced the documents to the government pursuant to a subpoena should merit protection for the documents, because responding to a subpoena does not constitute a voluntary waiver of privilege.  The court noted, “Involuntary disclosures do not automatically waive the attorney-client privilege.  But without the threat of contempt, the mere existence of a subpoena does not render testimony or the production of documents involuntary.”  Id. at *6.  The court noted that “even though the subpoena specifically contemplated that Toberoff may choose to redact privileged materials, he did not.”  Id.  Because he did not make any effort to assert the attorney-client privilege over the documents when responding to the subpoena, the court treated his disclosure as voluntary.  As a voluntary disclosure, Toberoff’s production of the documents amounted to a waiver of the attorney-client privilege over them. 

The court also considered whether it “should enforce a purported confidentiality agreement based upon the letter from the U.S. Attorney’s Office.”  Id. at *5.  The court noted it was unclear that the letter at issue constituted a confidentiality agreement, but that even if it did, the court would decline to interpret it to protect the documents from production here.  The court pointed out that enforcing “post hoc contracts regarding how information may be revealed” would do “little to serve the public ends of adequate legal representation that the attorney-client privilege is designed to protect.” Id.  For that reason, the court declined to rule that the documents should be protected under the terms of the U.S. Attorney’s letter.

The Ninth Circuit’s ruling here may ensure that the selective waiver principle disappears from American jurisprudence faster than a speeding bullet. In light of Pacific Pictures and the prior tide of decisions declining to adopt the theory, it is clear that parties must give careful consideration to privilege issues when responding to government subpoenas.  When responding to a government investigation, a company often seeks to cooperate as fully as possible, in order to build credibility with the government and achieve a favorable resolution.  However, companies must balance this consideration with a recognition that anything they produce to the government may be subject to production in later civil litigation, as well.  Just as Clark Kent changes into Superman, a document that helps with a government investigation can become kryptonite in subsequent civil litigation.  Companies should therefore make the effort necessary to identify and assert privilege when faced with government investigations.  In addition, because many companies have more than one firm handling government investigations and civil litigation, it is critical that counsel consider the implications of producing documents beyond their own engagements, and company counsel must recognize and coordinate such interactions.

Although selective waiver would likely make it easier for parties to respond to government investigations, its failure to gain acceptance outside the Eighth Circuit means that companies must be mindful of the implications of production for future civil litigation.

1 The Pacific Pictures court cited the following cases rejecting selective waiver: In re Qwest Commc’ns Int’l, 450 F.3d 1179, 1197 (10th Cir. 2006); Burden–Meeks v. Welch, 319 F.3d 897, 899 (7th Cir. 2003); In re Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp. Billing Practices Litig., 293 F.3d 289, 295 (6th Cir. 2002); United States v. Mass. Inst. of Tech., 129 F.3d 681, 686 (1st Cir. 1997); Genentech, Inc. v. United States Int’l Trade Comm’n, 122 F.3d 1409, 1416–18 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Steinhardt Partners, L.P., 9 F.3d 230, 236 (2d Cir. 1993); Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Republic of Philippines, 951 F.2d 1414, 1425 (3d Cir. 1991); In re Martin Marietta Corp., 856 F.2d 619, 623–24 (4th Cir. 1988); Permian Corp. v. United States, 665 F.2d 1214, 1221 (D.C. Cir. 1981).

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP

Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.