Waiting for Superman: The Ninth Circuit Finally Weighs in on the Selective Waiver Doctrine

by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP

On April 17, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held in In re Pacific Pictures Corporation, that “a party waives attorney-client privilege forever by voluntarily producing privileged documents to the federal government.” 2012 WL 1293534 at *1 (9th Cir. 2012). In doing so, the Ninth Circuit joined the majority of other circuits in rejecting the selective waiver of attorney-client privilege.

History of Selective Waiver
The theory of selective waiver provides that a party’s voluntary disclosure of privileged materials to the government does not necessarily waive the privilege in civil litigation. The purpose of the rule is to encourage voluntary cooperation with government investigations.

The theory was first adopted by the Eighth Circuit in Diversified Industries Inc. v. Meredith, 572 F.2d 596 (8th Cir. 1978) (en banc). Since then, however, every other circuit to consider the theory has rejected it. See 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). Before In re Pacific, the Ninth Circuit twice deferred judgment on the issue, leaving it an open question as to whether the court would accept a theory of selective waiver. See United States v. Bergonzi, 403 F.3d 1048, 1050 (9th Cir. 2005) (per curiam); Bittaker v. Woodford, 331 F.3d 715, 720 n. 5 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

Truth, Justice, and the American Way
In the 1930s, Jerome Siegel and Joe Shuster created Superman and ceded the intellectual property rights to D.C. Comics. Since Superman’s first appearance in 1938, the creators and their heirs have been fighting with D.C. Comics over royalties. Around 2000, attorney and Hollywood producer Marc Toberoff approached the heirs with an offer to manage the preexisting litigation and to arrange for a new Superman film to be produced. Toberoff hired lawyer David Michaels to assist with the business, but Michaels worked for only three months before absconding with copies of documents from the creators’ files. After a failed attempt to extort business from the heirs with the documents, he sent them anonymously to executives at D.C. Comics along with a timeline outlining in detail Toberoff’s alleged plan to capture Superman for himself. Since then, the parties have been battling over what to do with those documents. D.C. Comics entrusted the documents to an outside attorney and sought to obtain them through discovery in the ongoing lawsuits over Superman. Toberoff resisted those efforts. In 2007, a magistrate judge ordered some of the documents, including the timeline, turned over to D.C. Comics. A few months later, Toberoff finally reported the incident to the FBI, and in December 2008 he produced some of the documents.

In 2010, D.C. Comics filed this lawsuit claiming that Toberoff interfered with D.C. Comics’ contractual relationships with the heirs. Michaels’ timeline was incorporated into the complaint. Toberoff asked the U.S. Attorney’s Office to investigate Michaels, and it issued a grand jury subpoena for the documents, promising that if Toberoff voluntarily complied with the subpoena the government would “not provide the . . . documents . . . to non-governmental third parties except as may be required by law or court order.” Toberoff voluntarily complied with the subpoena and turned the documents over without redaction or objection.

D.C. Comics immediately requested all of the documents disclosed to the U.S. Attorney, claiming that the disclosure waived all privilege. The magistrate agreed, reasoning that voluntary disclosure of privileged materials breaches confidentiality and is inconsistent with the theory behind privilege. The district court denied review and petitioners sought Ninth Circuit review through a writ of mandamus.

The Ninth Circuit Rejects Selective Waiver
In rejecting the theory of selective waiver, the Ninth Circuit held that producing documents to the government constituted a voluntary waiver of attorney-client privilege for all purposes -- even though the documents had been subpoenaed -- because the heirs produced them without redaction or objection. It reasoned that voluntary disclosure of the documents was inconsistent with promoting full and frank attorney-client communications, regardless of whether the disclosure was to the government or a private party. The court stated that “to unmoor a privilege from its underlying justification . . . would at least be failing to construe the privilege narrowly, . . . [a]nd more likely, would be creating an entirely new privilege.” In re Pacific Pictures Corp., 2012 WL 1293534 at *4. The court also noted that, since Diversified, there have been multiple legislative attempts to adopt the doctrine of selective waiver, yet most have failed: “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.

The fact that the heirs were victims (of having their documents stolen) did not warrant different treatment because “if it is unnecessary to adopt a theory of selective waiver to encourage potential defendants to cooperate with the government. It is even less necessary to do so to encourage victims to report crimes to the government,” Id. at *5. It was similarly unpersuaded that, because Toberoff was a victim of the crime, petitioners were entitled to the common interest exception to waiver because “a shared desire to see the same outcome . . . is insufficient to bring a communication . . . within this exception.” Id. at *6. Further, voluntary disclosure could not be cured by a post hoc confidentiality agreement such as the letter obtained in this case from the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Thus, the Court found that the interest in encouraging cooperation with the government is outweighed by the interest in upholding the purpose of the attorney-client privilege.

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.

© Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, 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 info@jdsupra.com. 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: info@jdsupra.com.

- 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.