The Occupational Safety & Health Reporter™ provides complete news coverage and documentation of federal and state occupational safety and health programs, standards, legislation, regulations, enforcement, and Review Commission decisions.
By David Schwartz
Neither attorney-client privilege nor attorney work product doctrine protect strategic planning documents from disclosure to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, despite claims by in-house counsel that it needed them in “anticipation of potential litigation,” a federal district court in Wisconsin ruled Feb. 8 (Solis v. Milk Specialties Co., E.D. Wis., No. 11-MC-72-JPS, 2/8/12).
At issue in the case before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin was Milk Specialties Co.'s refusal to turn over two documents to OSHA in response to an administrative subpoena issued by the secretary of labor. The document request arose from an OSHA inspection of the company's facility in Fond du Lac, Wis., following a report of a dust explosion that caused a fire.
The company asserted the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine when it refused to turn over its “Five Year Strat Plan” for combustible dust and a combustible dust review report, prepared by the company's vice president for environment, health, and safety.
The district court, which had original jurisdiction over the case when the company refused to comply, noted that in-house counsel for the company had requested that a company vice president prepare the documents in “anticipation of potential litigation.”
The court explained that the attorney-client privilege protects communications where legal advice of any kind is sought from an attorney. The work product doctrine states that a party need not turn over materials that are prepared in anticipation of litigation.
Milk Specialties' documents did not meet either criteria, the district court ruled. Both were “aimed at business advice and were not prepared in anticipation of litigation,” the court said, adding that the dust review report was a collection of technical diagrams related to various facilities owned by the company, as well as cost estimates for various equipment that could be installed at each facility.
The five year strategic plan, the court continued, was a type of extension of the dust review report. The plan contained a look back at steps taken during the first year, information that OSHA already knew, as well as a look ahead to what steps the company could take to meet or improve its compliance with standards of the National Fire Protection Association.
None of the material in these documents constituted legal advice, and the company had not carried its burden of showing that the documents were communications made to in-house counsel in the interests of obtaining legal advice.
The company asserted that the documents provided a basis for in-house counsel to offer advice on ways to mitigate additional litigation.
“That is simply smart business,” the court countered.
Two additional factors weighed against the company. The first of these was one of timing: In-house counsel requested the documents after one OSHA investigation had closed and before another began, and it was unlikely, in the court's view, that the company could have anticipated the events that led to the second investigation. The second factor is that it is harder for an employer to prove a legal privilege when, as in this case, that privilege involves in-house counsel, since such counsel are often involved in business matters as well as legal ones.
The court said that, in essence, the documents advocated the position that the company “can avoid legal trouble by complying with the law.” The fact that this position appeared in documents prepared at the request of in-house counsel did not qualify them as privileged from disclosure, the court ruled.
The decision of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin in Solis v. Milk Specialties Co. is available at http://op.bna.com/env.nsf/r?Open=jstn-8rfv5g.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)