From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kindred Healthcare, Inc. v. SAI Glob. Compliance, Inc.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Feb 14, 2019
169 A.D.3d 517 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)

Opinion

8423N Index 653225/16

02-14-2019

KINDRED HEALTHCARE, INC., Plaintiff–Respondent, v. SAI GLOBAL COMPLIANCE, INC., Defendant–Appellant.

Barton LLP, New York (Randall L. Rasey of counsel), for appellant. Schlam Stone & Dolan LLP, New York (Seth D. Allen of counsel), for respondent.


Barton LLP, New York (Randall L. Rasey of counsel), for appellant.

Schlam Stone & Dolan LLP, New York (Seth D. Allen of counsel), for respondent.

Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Webber, Kahn, Kern, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jennifer G. Schecter, J.), entered June 21, 2018, which denied defendant SAI Global Compliance, Inc.'s letter motion to compel production by plaintiff Kindred Healthcare, Inc. of a memorandum, based on the common interest doctrine, and granted permission to appeal pursuant to CPLR 5701(c), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly held that a legal memorandum prepared by plaintiff's General Counsel, and addressed to its Chief Executive Officer, which provided a summary and analysis of its pending litigation matters, including the litigation at issue, and subsequently shared with potential merger partners during the due diligence period pursuant to a common interest agreement, was privileged and protected from disclosure.

The common interest privilege is an exception to the traditional rule that the presence of a third-party at a communication between counsel and client is sufficient to deprive the communication of confidentiality. The common interest doctrine is a limited exception to waiver of the attorney-client privilege, and requires that: (1) the underlying material qualify for protection under the attorney-client privilege, (2) the parties to the disclosure have a common legal interest, and (3) the material must pertain to pending or reasonably anticipated litigation for it to be protected. The record, here, demonstrates that the common interest agreement was entered into in reasonable anticipation of litigation (see Ambac Assur. Corp. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 27 N.Y.3d 616, 36 N.Y.S.3d 838, 57 N.E.3d 30 [2016] ).


Summaries of

Kindred Healthcare, Inc. v. SAI Glob. Compliance, Inc.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Feb 14, 2019
169 A.D.3d 517 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
Case details for

Kindred Healthcare, Inc. v. SAI Glob. Compliance, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:Kindred Healthcare, Inc., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. SAI Global Compliance…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Feb 14, 2019

Citations

169 A.D.3d 517 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 1164
92 N.Y.S.3d 621

Citing Cases

Town New Dev. Sales & Mktg. v. Lex 47th Dev.

( Spicer v GardaWorld Consulting (UK) Ltd. , 181 AD3d 413, 414 [1st Dept 2020], lv dismissed 37 NY3d 1084…

N.Y. Univ. v. Turner Constr. Co.

For the common interest privilege to apply, it would mean that FEMA would either sue the same party or be…