A Look Into McDonald's Fight to Protect Its In-House Counsel Privilege
"Plaintiffs' arguments boil down to nothing more than an objection to McDonald's existence as a large corporation with complex legal needs," McDonald's lawyer argues.
February 27, 2020 at 06:07 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Corporate Counsel
A federal magistrate judge in Chicago on Tuesday is slated to hear arguments about a critical in-house counsel issue: Whether or not lawyers at McDonald's USA retained their attorney-client and work product privilege while communicating with other employees and an outside consultant.
Earlier this month two lead plaintiffs in an antitrust class action filed a motion to compel McDonald's to produce 19 documents it has listed as privileged. The suit involves a former "no poach" provision in the company's contracts with franchisees, which required restaurants not to solicit or hire employees from other McDonald's restaurants without the other franchisee's consent.
McDonald's is represented by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, with San Francisco partner Rachel Brass opposing the motion to turn over the documents. Brass did not return messages seeking comment, and her office deferred questions to McDonald's, which also did not return messages.
Brass' court filing, though, makes clear where her client stands on the privilege issue. "Plaintiffs' arguments boil down to nothing more than an objection to McDonald's existence as a large corporation with complex legal needs," it states. "But that does not somehow eviscerate its entitlement to privileged legal advice."
The plaintiffs' legal team is led by Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, with San Francisco partner Yaman Salahi writing the motion to compel production of the documents. Salahi confirmed the hearing date Tuesday but declined further comment.
In their court filings, the parties tend to agree that the communications fall into three key categories:
- Some 14 documents sent by various in-house counsel, often including McDonald's U.S. general counsel Mahrukh Hussain, to large lists of employees.
- Four business-related email attachments, two of which were sent by Hussain, that were copied to various employees and in-house lawyers; a third was sent by senior counsel Danny Sikka to human resources employees requesting feedback about a proposed reorganization; and the fourth sent by Hal Merck, then McDonald's managing counsel, to legal and government affairs employees about a congressional inquiry.
- One memo sent by in-house counsel to various people, including to an outside consultant from McKinsey & Co.
Salahi's motion argues that many if not all of the 14 documents sent to large groups fail the privilege test because the company has not shown that all the recipients needed access to the communications.
His motion says several of the emails appear to be primarily business documents that happened to be copied to in-house lawyers. He suggests an in camera review of the four emails should determine if they are non-privileged business communications or legal and therefore privileged documents.
Finally, Salahi argues the privilege was waived when one email included an outside consultant, even though it came from an in-house counsel.
In her opposing motion, Brass argues that in-house counsel's "advice to all employees about issues related to their duties—like that in the first 14 documents Plaintiffs challenge—is privileged. And it is no surprise that in limited circumstances this requires advice to entire departments about a significant legal issue."
Her motion argues the four email attachments were sent to in-house attorneys to obtain their legal advice, and therefore remain privileged even if they do serve a business purpose.
And she argues privilege was not waived where the consultant's role was little different than the employees he worked alongside, which the court had already ruled earlier in this same case.
As Brass sums it up in her motion: "A company's general counsel emails human resources employees advising them on compliance with wage and benefit laws. An in-house lawyer lays out an initial legal analysis of a congressional inquiry for executives and the company's legal team. A senior employee sends a draft document to in-house counsel and asks for his legal analysis. These are the communications Plaintiffs seek to discover, each a blackletter example of attorney-client privilege."
A recent article by Jeffrey Reilly, who serves as general counsel at Miles & Stockbridge, suggests that courts have generally upheld in-house counsel privilege but have found exceptions, especially in the three areas that the plaintiffs are attacking.
"The attorney-client privilege does not automatically protect communications simply because a lawyer participated in them," Reilly wrote.
On Tuesday, in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, McDonald's and the plaintiffs may find out which arguments sway U.S. District Magistrate Judge David Weisman of the Northern District of Illinois on in-house counsel privilege.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllWalmart Accused of Misrepresenting 'Cheese' Ingredients in Great Value's Macaroni & Cheese
3 minute readJudge Dismisses Microplastics Suit Against Evian's 'Natural Spring Water'
5 minute readKraft Heinz Hires GC of Industrial Manufacturer as Legal Chief
CLO of Yum Brands Exiting After 17 Years With Fast-Food Giant
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Senate Democrats Advance 4th Circuit Pick Ryan Park’s Nomination
- 2Judge Rejects Meta’s Plea to Send FTC Antitrust Suit to Trash Heap
- 3How Have You Fared in 2024? Share Your Insights in the Managing Partners Survey
- 4Court Rules Mere Conduit Defense Not Suitable for a Motion to Dismiss
- 5Ironclad Officially Launches New Gen AI Assistant Jurist
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250