cotion ‘As of May 14, 206 144 PM EDT. Peralta v. Cendant Corp. ‘Unies States Disc Cor forthe Distt of Conese ‘coker 22,1989, Decides NO, 2986001452 BA) Reyer RAMON PERALTA s: CENDANT CORPORATION Core Terms former employee. communications. depsiton ‘vomney tient privileged, contetatios, aries work rode dscns, opposing counsel, conlsions, employes, Case Summary Procedaral Posture Pao deposed hs omer pervs ia conection with Iie cmplgmentdtriinaton chim aghina! defendant. Daring’ the deposion, defendast seened clans of _sorey- Pies > Amy Ce Peg > Geer idence > regs» Ane Cat vege > pe {1 A corporations tmeys conversion wt comport taployes can be covered by the atone pepe ‘Ths preg i pple to communcatons wick 1) ane made 1 te corporate couse, acting a ses 2) are ‘inde tthe econ of erperte supers, forthe purpose ‘of sevring legal aie fom count 3) concer mare ii the scope ofthe employee” corporate diss 4) the employees ae sien aware hat thy ae being (uestoned io der that tb corporation can eal sie. HN? Aay pivieed ifomation cbuized by 4 former employee wile a0 employee of the former employe. ‘ncluding an information conveyed 39 couse ang at eid, reais piveged pon the teisaton of the ames employee's employment ost Pree» ‘nl Deptt Chet Pode > > Pvbged Cmca > Work > Maou o oon > Deon > ames Patick GaryPage 2 of 5 190 ERD. 36, #38 1999 US. Dit LEXIS 1895, “18951 Chit Pete > > Privileged Commun: > Wore rece > Pines > Atay-Clen Pale > Genet Over UNS Geverly, ener Ped. B Cin B26 te work po aceine spiro document gible igs, wel ‘etl inpesions, concen. opinions. eal ores lan aumey ober representative of party conceing the ligation. The Work paduct doctrine docs ina tery Td way opie a cemseibe the cope of dporons pon orl examination. Cit Poeda > > Privileged Communion > Wore (ii Pcl» > Piped Communitins > Wak ‘rit Doce > ver of Ptesions idence > Piles > Are Cet Pee > Gear Overien dns > Pris > Covermon Priess > Wane NE Discosre of ook prot information 1 cid erion des not wave the work prodct inant, Counsel: (01) For RAMON PERALTA, sii Doi HKesmnst,Safor, CT For CENDANT CORP defendant A. Raber Fiche, racis, Alte, Matson An Brest, ckson Lewis Schl & Kepan, Sto, CT Sages Jane Bond Aner, Unie Sates Distt Je Opinion by: Jane Bord Aeron Opinion "38) MEMORANDUM ORDER. A.BACKGROUND This lope involves the aserion of atomey-cleat pwiilege by defendant ding depeion cf a Tomer employee of the defendant (391 Phinifs conse sbpenied Randi Klas, pani’ former immediate serie and lege the dession-make wl ear 10 anit cims of employment esemination. Kab 99 longer i empleyed by defendint Cenfan Corton ‘hgh aparently er deposion was Scheduled YoOgh te Cent Harn Resoures ofc. Ely nthe depen, Plans couse sted Ma. Klser if she hd pen with sayone egning te depston Ms. Klaber sea that She hod spoken 16 ber husbund aod to Ms, Mtaeen Bresan,atomey for Cendant who Nos preset at the epsidoneeresening ceendas (ut ot Ms. Kade ‘When pnts counsel asked Ms. Klzber abot hee onversion wih Ms Besuan. (2) Ms Bresnan objected, and insted the deponent otto answer the question. Liter inthe depsiion, absent x reak reed Py ‘he deponet, pis coun! sked Ms Kinser wha, ‘enk Defdans couse! agin abeted, and insects Panis couse the contacted the Cour egg t= pevege spt. Ashe: argumet regen te aseion the torent prep wa then eld on he eco. Ms. Bresna indented at his point that fer conversation ih Ms Kako ar a evo-eay dco,” Dep. 103, in ha the wince spe oho abot “he ending ete inh ease" and MS. res, tar, pe othe wes shout "th defendant's postion” Their converaos dang Thebes, scoring to Mi. Klabey, lve a requ fr “tvidance on how 10 anwer a line of laguy hat se pscelved may cause hes poblens or may be ua” Hd, Ms. Klabers doposion was conned. sad the pares std eter bis B. Disossion Jn Upiahn Co_».Unied Sis. the Spreme Cour held tat LNT 3 corposon's ame somerset 3) corporis onployent ouldbe covered by the atrmychent privilege, 429 US 28% 01S i 672 66 El 2d 8 [EAD This pvilege was ound appa by the sper (Court to communists which I) were made to the corporste cou, sting a sock; 2) were mae atthe dct of earporate sup, fr th purpose of ecu, legal adic om court 3) concesed mtr ihn the scope of the employees’ compre dues ah 4) the opps were alcealy ave that they were being (ussioed in cde hat the cosporation cul obi legal save. i. 3BEOS, IEMs. Kb were sil employed by Cnn, stearate conversions wit Me Bresan ‘shou ster within Ms, Klibo's corporate des mould be privileged The Supreme Coan decison, howe, elt ‘open te sueion of wheter companions betwen counsel and former employees were inladed win the vig, 395 Chil ase Burger scene ated hs view of the Bounties of te peene a Including fomer employes ‘A communication i privileged when, here, an employe or former employee peat the dition of lames Patek GaryPage 3 of 3 190 ERD. 38,36; 199 US. Di, LEXIS 18951, 3 the management (3) with an atomey segning indict or proposed condo within the scope of npayment 408.508 408 (Burger. concen), Defendant rg ths Cou adopt Burgers extension of the piles ‘minunictons with former employee Kiser Several fede cours hive sdesed his ie, and eterno hat Upioha's etonle appr to fone ceomployes. In Is Coons Pri Poseigs io euoleum Pofucis Ant. the Ni Cait note n= Footie, thatthe atlomeycinsprvlege covets ammanictons wth free enployees becte “Toe employes, af well ascent employees, my pessess he ‘eleva information nesded by export counsel to aie theclen with respectt cil opel dies" and fecase “he aortic prvlege 1 sewed by te cersiny ht conventions etcen the atrey andl ‘ill emai ivileged afer te employe lees” 655 1385. (361m, Cie 98D) Amarin Paice, ne» Maryland Cop Corp. he court conleded hat ‘uncaions between omer enploye anda cept fy’ counsel my be pivleged, when the prpoe of TP] the communications (048) wa to give the former employer gal tee UA ERD 26D Mose 108) Te Fourth Circuit hs alo extended Ligob's als to Former employees, lea: MiGs 106 EAU S52 {Gu 1887) nding. hat pvilegs pecuded ingly nt Inteniew condoted by inventory aor) i former epg a agen) ‘Te Sees Circuit ha not ye aed om this tse, but several ist Cori ave considered the question ine ‘inex of deciding whether ex pare cermin by ‘cpping counsel with frer employee of cxpote Puy vllted Mode Rule 42 In Dut e Gralen See fami 136 ERD. 24) (Dann, 1091). he conn conc thar foe employees of th dtendat corporation were rt verse pois” Yor the purposes of the Bale, with seve ene Some former enployes cominve to personly the Cparizaon even afr they fave teminaed thie ployment eltnstip, An example would te a ‘anger eel employe involved in he udervng Censacon, who ie alo. confeving with the ‘rganzatons ayer ia marsaing the evidence mie fell This Kind of (6) former empovee it doubly py opened information, etasiog Work poactand a opposing ler nt elie ‘ap 8 baveat of soc iloomtin without avait vrata by te enatzation. iat. 26, quoting G. azar and W. Hodes the Law of ‘Lawyeig: A andbock o the Medel lef rfesinat Conduct 4364361. Because te dfn ia Dubois bad ot entfied ay speci peg eosin which ‘he former employee wee pi a poectve er Ws at Jsifed. ML See also Pocus Techlags Co Unirnal.fac, 129 ERD.-©21 (SDN 1080 (nce leet ha pt emonstied ht Former employee was ryt specie pepe infemanton, privilege dl not ‘aac Une Stes. Hsing Anton the Twn af Miler, 179 ERD. 69, 72.72 cD. Conn 1997 (lowing €5 pt cote wih oem emo: ary ssi eg Indo et burden of demonstrating that one engloyee was acng a wal costa. tte cous have eached diferent conclson. a Clark aumento. bi Parts M,C 19855, Dis LEXIS EAST, Ha 2 CHSSS. 1988 WL 207 oT, NDI, ‘sas 53 erporte cone ad asserted he aoe} lie palege to preclde inguiry ine predepstion, [osemployment conversions wih former employee ‘The cout condaed tht Usioha didnot supp an xension ofthe privilege in he station presen Former employees ae nt the ce They sire wo ‘Thee wlingness to provide inteertion is weled 1 the tos of th former cxprate peor fd they have no dt to hei former empleo provi ‘uch afomnatn ti virwaly separ diag the poston of fmer employes fom any he hid pty who might have periaet aforaton abou ne ‘emote compara pares w laws. ist 2. Sonal Bonet laid Tacs x Ol pubic (ei Comps 129 BED 515 U8. 1900 (0 pee soles Como Da Sens x at Tai, IS ERD_AY1SDCoL_ 1082 (a0 pegs pie ‘nde Caio aw, a foe employes ou et bind organ ecaz ore employee nt ei pak (o caporaion'satormey, (8) and former enpyee not "he only inal wth revo knowe) Nowe ofthe ese cited above answer esse qution rested inhi cace: whether, unde er! nw coun for an employer can clam a pepe ato its strey'= ‘eamricatons in. presrng. an toepresented fomer employe fer deposition by opposing coms aa such ‘ney commnmicatons dang ee depo bo bet ‘eso int depsion Inthe Cot view, whose ‘plication ofthe Unio inci frmer employes as if ty woe flee than creat eplayc Jamas Patek Gary190 FR. 38, +40; 1999 US, Dis. LEXIS 18951 sie bythe underyingvessnig f Uric Me. Kier ‘enol an employee of Conan, ch ht heist pesk "a ‘he econ of be mage” 49 U9. #03 (Burger (C3, comcuring [at] AS in Clk Rae, 085 Wh, 281, hres mo chim tht Ms. Kabra ay day 10 oviethe intarmaion soup inh depeiton et, he ss not been reine a8 8 conan nor bas she ben stained a6 under any cntnmng conan! uy 2 he leniat' Fhe abence of ankle tha lich ommnuicatons ate potted wil nat case Hepaae (9 anae ots important storey chen pe, eit prove As Wigmore soni ‘The palege emai a exceton to te general ay to dco is benefit ae al ect nd specu 5 bsruston is plan and cone Hee wort resesing for the sake of general poly. bu i ie ‘oneiteless an bal the nvestigton he uh, Wovght wo be sticly confined Wit te sanowest oem consist with ie gi of ts pine | Wigmore, idence ss, 291, a $86 Ge: e196, Apmlying We rationale of the above cases, the Court oxclades (10) that HN2 any pied iforaton ‘ined by Mx ster while an employee of Cain, Including ay intrmation conveyed by counsel ring prod, semais pileged ypon the temiaaton of her fmploymen. AS the Ninth Celt raed in Beso rads “the aomey-cen pile is served by te cern nt convertion Retest storey anda ‘lenin privilege ater te erployee leves 5 24 WLJsO0 7 Funer, sf the este and purpose of Me Breot'sconimaictons with Ma. Klber wa ere ‘acs ltd pass elton at Klaber ws ae fo eal of ber enploymen such communications st tak pied, whenever hey oecued. Tas at 10 MS. Bresta’spedepesiton communications with Mi Klaber Tie othe "undeyng fas a thse” he deena eiegeataches an sch commanions age pee. “Tis concsion, bomever, doesnot empty rene te yariee’ cument dapte about communications which ‘coud eer Ms. Klser's employment ened, reed to hes depstion eearan an testimony: Tote exe hat eomeraions bacieen Ms. Brenan at Me. Klaber went beyond (i) Ms Klabers owe ofthe ceustances of plas employnent sd eanation snd beyond MS Page dof 5 liber sober sce within he cout of her engleytent vi be defendant sch commanietions, any, ate at beer shown to be ened Yo defen stray ie ge fo example. Ms Brean normed Ms Ksnor ‘of face deveoped ring he gation, each seinen of ‘her wines, of which Ms Kisber would nt ve ba prior or independent pentonal knowlege, sch ommuicatons weld aa be pvese, parla ven ther pret! wo iafuence wes wo confor ast her testimony 0 sech formation, consciously or unconsciously. Abo tis at cer fom th cord af ‘hea angmen wht Me Brean meant by “éfensn't ponon fo the etn thre comments ceeded the Soudares aacoted above, they are aot coneed by (Cena atareyeton preg. Forte wih eps ‘hei no Mi, Beran ad Me, Klar dacasiont hing he break two how a guenion shoal be hand, ‘hey have notbeen shown oe etd ony pivig, ea opposing counsel asthe ght wo ask abat mis hat ay [Hr have afte or dangd the wises'sexiony. "The dation dea bythe Cau betwuen atoeyint pled and wong communications wi former loves shoud ot be eft to apply he een pat kept in mind: te communication rele othe omer employee's condaet and. knowledge, or ‘commaniction ih defendants counsel ding to her fmpoymet? I, sch conmnication i pot om atone by defendants atomey-cen pepe ander Unjoin- Arto any communication Benen dead 4} couse pd Teme ployee whom couse! does ot represent, ich be ono oterwite pclae the witness essay, consol ef unconscioaly, 20 ‘storey preg applies [White the pies dk ot adden he iui ts eter ‘rif, te Conmanitions ere may’ be side by the ork poder docine. See Sart Industral Ts, 128 ERDiot S18 (whe storeycent privilege i ry 1 communication with former erphyee, work prodoct Socine protected predeposion conversions) ANS General. under Fed RCin_B_26 the work product soca applies o “cuenta ng” swell “ental impesions coveusons, ois ot ep theories of an atrey or oer representative of pany concen he eon Se Atta 1288) Te wok pout doen desi very itd secon he Resta Thi of Law Goveiag Layers be atone pie wou mal asc ‘commas woe former emplpe not fr te oma ans #12, Cn Reston sng) naps ore csc, ut a ot exes oes tht ay be saniig at oe erp James Pavick GaetyPage 5 ofS 190 ERD. 38, 42; 1999 US. Dist LEXIS 16951, 15, way operat to ccamsribe the sap of depitions upon al eam) ‘the extent the communications are apically Me rsa’ encuion or opinion, they may be covered by work prods wroteon under Fed CP al 26 Since te purpose of the work product dene “not pote the cidence fom dle the oud word uae {0 protect it ony from he knowledge of eppulag course 2d his lent” follows tae HIVE “eos of (work roduc nfrmatin] 10 third persons does wot waive che ‘worked immaniy”Wrigh Miler & Mars. ede ‘Pratie and Procedure: Civ 2882024 See alia Mates 1 Uited Sms, 1997 18. is LENIS 6035 107 1 224080 SDNY) (depocion queions 10 non-pany ‘ness reputingcomveratins with defends counsel eld to be prised by work produc, mo waiver by Allo to 8) thd persons and eel possi tha onrng witness to reipond to gestions wl reveal purse sategy- Whi plait s eume! il erfore ‘be preduded fom ashing Ms. Khe exp abot Mis Bresna’s legal coclsons or lps opinions tat revel defendants pl sep, the work produ doctrine wll not preclde inguity into” other nompiieged ommaicaons a5 set out above. See Swan J. Becker, ‘Condutng_Infomnal_Dissovery of a Pan's. former ‘Enplovss Legal and ical Consens and Canaan Mad Lo-en 29, 308 (1992) Extension of te (work roduc) dain fo cove every commen de by couse rng an letriew with former employee events ‘pposing cout! fom conducting meaning ng the seeds of tas that couse may Dave inten or inadverteny planed dup tha erie”). Therefore. © the ene Me. Brean conimanicateé ber “coshsions, epiions,rgal theres even if ot covered by Cenas ‘Storeyctent piles, sich communications would be rote tom discovery by oppexing coun! unr Rule 6 Comma are deed wo conctae Mk Kish deposon TPA1S) fn acordnce wih ti opinion. IS $0 ORDERED, Janet Bood Anton Unies Stes Diss ge Dated at New Haven, Conneticut: October 2,19 Jamas Pack Garty