{"id":185,"date":"2013-06-17T11:01:31","date_gmt":"2013-06-17T11:01:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/?p=185"},"modified":"2023-07-31T16:45:43","modified_gmt":"2023-07-31T20:45:43","slug":"supreme-court-holds-that-there-is-no-waiver-of-the-work-product-doctrine-when-information-is-shared-between-coparties-or-parties-with-shared-interests","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/work-product\/supreme-court-holds-that-there-is-no-waiver-of-the-work-product-doctrine-when-information-is-shared-between-coparties-or-parties-with-shared-interests\/","title":{"rendered":"(4) Supreme Court Holds There is No Waiver of the Work Product Doctrine When Information is Shared Between Coparties or Parties with Shared Interests."},"content":{"rendered":"<p>In <a href=\"http:\/\/www.courts.ri.gov\/Courts\/SupremeCourt\/Opinions\/10-288.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">State v. Lead Industries Association, Inc., No. 2010-288-Appeal<\/a>, the state argued that a defendant waived the work-product protection because it disclosed a document prepared in anticipation of litigation to three senior management personnel at a meeting of the defendant company&#8217;s board of directors.\u00a0 <i>Id<\/i>. at 17.\u00a0 The Supreme Court disagreed.<\/p>\n<p>In holding that the defendant did not waive the work product protection by its disclosure of the information to three top members of its management, the Court recognized that \u201c[t]here is no waiver where the transferor of the protected information and the recipient of that information are coparties or where they share interests in a matter litigated against a common adversary.\u201d\u00a0 <i>Id<\/i>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In State v. Lead Industries Association, Inc., No. 2010-288-Appeal, the state argued that a defendant waived the work-product protection because it disclosed a document prepared in anticipation of litigation to three senior management personnel at a meeting of the defendant company&#8217;s board&#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[37],"tags":[32,35,36,38],"class_list":["post-185","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-work-product","tag-discovery","tag-rhode-island-superior-court-practice","tag-waiver","tag-work-product"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/185","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=185"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/185\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=185"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=185"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=185"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}