(analyzing work product protection for an investigation into alleged sexual abuse at a school; holding that witness interview notes and memorandum deserve work product protection; holding that the investigating law firm's document deserved work product protection; "[T]he court must examine the role of the Shipman & Goodwin [law firm hired to investigate the abuse claims] attorneys in this case, considering the duties they performed, and must determine whether they were providing legal advice or were serving as independent investigators."; "This case, however, differs from Zimmerman [Zimmerman v. Poly Prep Country Day Sch., No. 09-CV-4586(FB), 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40704, 2011 WL 1429221 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 13, 2011)] in at least four important respects. In this case, Shipman & Goodwin was retained in October 2014 'by a Special Committee on the Board of Trustees of IMS to conduct a comprehensive investigation of allegations of sexual molestation against the school[.]'"; "First, Attorney Sheridan's [lawyer retained to investigate alleged abuse in the Zimmerman case] role was limited merely to fact-finding, without any indication that he was going to make any recommendations, legal or otherwise, to the defendant school, unlike Shipman & Goodwin, whose retention included advising defendant IMS 'how best to respect and support any alumni who may have been harmed[,]' and which law firm specifically was retained in connection with ongoing and anticipated litigation. Second, Attorney Sheridan apparently did not reveal to the people that he interviewed that he was an attorney, nor he did indicate that he was there for the purpose of trying to defend the school in future litigation, whereas the alumni notice in this case clearly spells out that Ruekert and Bergenn are attorneys. At the time the letter was sent to the IMS community, defendant had been defending lawsuit for twenty-one years, from 1993 through 2014, so that litigation clearly was anticipated. Third, there apparently was no expectation of privacy or confidentiality in the fact-gathering interviews conducted by Attorney Sheridan; while the words 'privacy' or 'confidentiality' do not appear in the November 5, 2014 mass mailing, the insertion of the words 'integrity' and 'sensitivity' in describing Attorneys Ruekert and Bergenn's experience to this field the same impression that the communications to them will not be revealed. And lastly, the people interviewed by Attorney Sheridan were all prominent representatives of the defendant school, individuals who clearly were going to be deposed in the anticipated litigation in Zimmerman and whose alleged failure to respond was apparent, or soon would be, and whose credibility was going to loom large at trial, whereas the individuals targeted here for interview were other potential victims, or witnesses, that is, people whose identities had not yet been revealed in the anticipated litigation."; "There are multiple parallels between this lawsuit and Sandra T.E. [Sandra T.E. v. South Berwyn Sch. Dist. 100, 600 F.3d 612, 619 (7th Cir. 2010)]. The communications in the instant case between the Head of School and the Shipman & Goldwin attorneys were confidential, as were the communications with the alumna and alumnus who responded to defendant's letter. Second, in both cases, the law firms were retained specifically to develop the defendants' response to the claims of sexual abuse. Third, the attorneys were retained in the midst of ongoing litigation. At the time the letter was sent to the IMS Community, defendant was aware, and 'deeply concerned[,] with allegations of sexual abuse brought forth by alumni[,]'. . . and as defendant notes in its brief in opposition, IMS has been defending these suits since 1993. . . . Additionally, the fact that defendant had retained different litigation counsel 'is not dispositive[,]' and 'does not remove the investigation from the protection of the work product doctrine.'. . .'")
| Case Date |
Jurisdiction |
State |
Cite Checked |
| 2017-01-31 |
Federal |
CT |
|