United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corporation, Civ. A. No. 7198.

CourtUnited States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of Massachusetts
Writing for the CourtWYZANSKI
Citation89 F. Supp. 357
PartiesUNITED STATES v. UNITED SHOE MACHINERY CORPORATION.
Decision Date10 March 1950
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 7198.

89 F. Supp. 357

UNITED STATES
v.
UNITED SHOE MACHINERY CORPORATION.

Civ. A. No. 7198.

United States District Court D. Massachusetts.

March 10, 1950.


89 F. Supp. 358

James M. Malloy, Holmes Baldridge, Richard B. O'Donnell, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., C. Worth Rowley, Edward M. Feeney, Roy Freed, Boston, Mass., Morton Myerson, Brookline, Mass., Laurence S. Flaherty, Somerville, Mass., Sp. Attys. (Herbert A. Bergson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Gerald J. McCarthy, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen., Alfred Karsted, Boston, Mass., Margaret H. Brass, Washington, D. C., Bernard I. Kaplan, Boston, Mass., Robert L. Grant, Boston, Mass., Clarence S. Walker, Cambridge, Mass., James Browning, Washington, D. C., Sp. Attys., on the brief), for plaintiff.

John L. Hall, Claude R. Branch, Charles P. Curtis, Robert Proctor and John B. Reigeluth (of Choate, Hall & Stewart), Walter Powers and Bertram H. Loewenberg (of Sherburne, Powers & Needham), Boston, Mass., and Theodore Kiendl (of Davis, Polk, Wardwell, Sunderland & Kiendl), New York City, for defendant.

WYZANSKI, District Judge.

Defendant objects to the introduction of nearly 800 exhibits on the ground that they fall within the attorney-client privilege.

The rule which allows a client to prevent the disclosure of information which he gave to his attorney for the purpose of securing legal assistance is founded upon the belief that it is necessary "in the interest and administration of justice". Hunt v. Blackburn, 128 U.S. 464, 470, 9 S.Ct. 125, 127, 32 L.Ed. 488. As stated in the Comment to Rule 210 of the A.L.I. Model Code of Evidence: "In a society as complicated in structure as ours and governed by laws as complex and detailed as those imposed upon us, expert legal advice is essential. To the furnishing of such advice the fullest freedom and honesty of communication of pertinent facts is a prerequisite. To induce clients to make such communications, the privilege to prevent their later disclosure is said by courts and commentators to be a necessity. The social good derived from the proper performance of the functions of lawyers acting for their clients is believed to outweigh the harm that may come from the suppression of the evidence in specific cases." Emphasis added. But the privilege should be strictly construed in accordance with its object. People's Bank v. Brown, 3 Cir., 112 F. 652.

Since this memorandum examines in turn the asserted application of this privilege to different classes of documents, it is unnecessary to try to state at the outset and with precision every qualification necessary to found a justified claim of privilege. It will be enough now to note in general, and later to apply in detail, the main qualifications which are necessary. The privilege applies only if (1) the asserted holder of the privilege is or sought to become a client; (2) the person to whom the communication was made (a) is a member of the bar of a court, or his subordinate and (b) in connection with this communication is acting as a lawyer; (3) the communication relates to a fact of which the attorney was informed (a) by his client (b) without the presence of strangers (c) for the purpose of securing primarily either (i) an opinion on law or (ii) legal services or (iii) assistance in some legal proceeding, and not (d) for the purpose of committing a crime or tort; and (4) the

89 F. Supp. 359
privilege has been (a) claimed and (b) not waived by the client

Before the various classes of challenged documents are enumerated, three observations applicable to all of them should be stated.

1. For present purposes the client is United Shoe Machinery Corporation and all its subsidiaries and affiliates considered collectively. These corporations all used the same outside and inside counsel. The legal affairs of these corporations were closely related. Except for convenience in billing and formal accounting there was no attempt to regard one particular corporation as "the client."

2. None of these corporations or their officers or employees consulted counsel with the purpose of seeking assistance in committing a crime or a tort. Mistaken or not, the officers and employees believed they were acting according to law. Unlike the persons referred to by Mr. Justice Cardozo in Clark v. United States, 289 U.S. 1, 15, 53 S.Ct. 465, 77 L.Ed. 519, they sought advice so that they might continue to act according to law. And counsel gave advice in the same spirit.

3. The defendant seasonably claimed whatever privilege it had. It did not waive its privilege by surrendering the exhibits in response to subpoenas, because it was agreed in advance by Government counsel that compliance with the subpoenas should not constitute a waiver.

The documents which are to be examined fall into four classes: (1) those to or from independent lawyers; (2) those to or from defendant's legal department; (3) those to or from defendant's patent department; and (4) working papers of persons in the patent department.

1. The first group of documents consist chiefly of letters to or from members of independent law partnerships.

These...

To continue reading

Request your trial
322 practice notes
  • United States v. Bonnell, Civ. No. 4-78-190
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court of Minnesota
    • December 27, 1979
    ...privilege state that the communication must be from the client to the attorney. See, e. g., United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 89 F.Supp. 357, 358 (D.Mass.1950) (Wyzanski, J.) ("the asserted holder of the privilege must be . . . a client"); Brown v. Waco Fire & Cas., 73 F.R.D. 29......
  • United States v. Felton, Crim. No. 83-49.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • May 18, 1984
    ...that he turned over to Boring. In re Grand Jury Investigation, 599 F.2d 1224 (3d Cir.1979); United States v. United Shoe Mfg. Co., 89 F.Supp. 357 (D.Mass. 1950). The record reveals that while Boring was asked to "check out" several attorneys, Boring was given the files in question and was h......
  • US v. Zolp, Crim. A. No. 86-299.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • April 30, 1987
    ...crime or tort; and (4) the privilege has been (a) claimed and (b) not waived by the client. United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 89 F.Supp. 357, 358-59 (D.Mass. The Government argues the privilege is improperly asserted in the conversation at issue because the conference call was m......
  • Orange County Publications, Inc., a Div. of Ottaway Newspapers v. County of Orange
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • June 15, 1995
    ...proceeding. People v. Belge, 59 A.D.2d 307, 309, 399 N.Y.S.2d 539 (4th Dept.1977), quoting United States v. United Shoe Mach. Corp., 89 F.Supp. 357, 358-359 (D.Mass.1950). The burden of proving all elements of the privilege rests upon the party asserting it. Matter of Priest v. Hennessy, su......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
323 cases
  • United States v. Bonnell, Civ. No. 4-78-190
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court of Minnesota
    • December 27, 1979
    ...privilege state that the communication must be from the client to the attorney. See, e. g., United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 89 F.Supp. 357, 358 (D.Mass.1950) (Wyzanski, J.) ("the asserted holder of the privilege must be . . . a client"); Brown v. Waco Fire & Cas., 73 F.R.D. 29......
  • US v. Zolp, Crim. A. No. 86-299.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • April 30, 1987
    ...crime or tort; and (4) the privilege has been (a) claimed and (b) not waived by the client. United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 89 F.Supp. 357, 358-59 (D.Mass. The Government argues the privilege is improperly asserted in the conversation at issue because the conference call was m......
  • Orange County Publications, Inc., a Div. of Ottaway Newspapers v. County of Orange
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • June 15, 1995
    ...proceeding. People v. Belge, 59 A.D.2d 307, 309, 399 N.Y.S.2d 539 (4th Dept.1977), quoting United States v. United Shoe Mach. Corp., 89 F.Supp. 357, 358-359 (D.Mass.1950). The burden of proving all elements of the privilege rests upon the party asserting it. Matter of Priest v. Hennessy, su......
  • State ex rel. Medical Assurance v. Recht, No. 30840.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • April 30, 2003
    ...crime or tort; and (4) the privilege has been (a) claimed and (b) not waived by the client. United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 89 F.Supp. 357, 358-59 (D.Mass.1950). The attorney-client privilege applies only to attorney-client communications, and is "intended 583 S.E.2d 104 as a ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product Immunity
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Antitrust Discovery Handbook
    • January 1, 2013
    ...attorney-client privilege to attach to a given communication, the lawyer must be acting in 11. United States v. United Shoe Mach. Corp., 89 F. Supp. 357, 358 (D. Mass 1950). For another commonly cited recitation of the elements of privilege, see 8 WIGMORE ON EVIDENCE § 2292 (1961): “(1) Whe......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Antitrust Discovery Handbook
    • January 1, 2013
    ...161 (2d Cir. 2002), 13 United States v. Threlkeld, 241 F. Supp. 324 (W.D. Tenn. 1965), 126 United States v. United Shoe Mach. Corp., 89 F. Supp. 357 (D. Mass 1950), 128 United States v. Weissman, 1995 WL 244522 (S.D.N.Y. 1995), 143 United States v. Western Elec. Co., 132 F.R.D. 1 (D.D.C. 19......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT