Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Another front has opened up in the ongoing war over privilege. This time it involves documents that a company says it turned over to a federal agency in order to reach a settlement. Does the agency have to keep the documents confidential, or can they be made public? At issue are materials that EnCana Corp., a Calgary, Alberta � based energy company, gave to the federal Commodities Futures Trading Commission earlier this year. The CFTC was investigating allegations that EnCana artificially inflated the price of natural gas it sold in California during the state’s energy crisis of 2000 � 01. E.&J. Gallo Winery, the Modesto, California � based winemaker, subsequently brought its own private action against EnCana over the price-fixing allegations. Gallo initially asked a federal district court judge in Fresno, where it filed suit, to force EnCana to hand over certain materials in discovery. After the Fresno judge refused, Gallo then asked a federal district court judge in Washington, D.C., to issue a subpoena ordering the CFTC to turn over its EnCana documents. EnCana cried foul, arguing that the materials were covered by a “settlement privilege” that kept them confidential. The CFTC disagreed in a later brief, saying that EnCana provided most of the documents prior to settlement talks. In May the D.C. judge granted the subpoena request, and the CFTC gave its EnCana papers to Gallo. Now EnCana is asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to force Gallo to return the documents and destroy all copies. EnCana’s lawyers at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher declined to comment publicly on their client’s motion, which was still pending at press time. The question of whether a settlement privilege exists is of keen interest to plaintiffs attorneys who frequently obtain documents from the government, as well as defense lawyers who try to keep such information from getting out. “I think it’s an extremely important decision that the D.C. Circuit court is going to make here,” says Donn Pickett, a partner at Bingham McCutchen who defends companies in antitrust suits. Not surprisingly, other defense attorneys also side with EnCana. Robert Van Nest of Keker & Van Nest in San Francisco says a D.C. Circuit finding that there is no settlement privilege would have a chilling effect on companies trying to reach a deal with regulators. And that, in turn, could hurt the government’s ability to solve its inquiries, he maintains. “In any kind of a government investigation, if you don’t protect that kind of information, people aren’t going to be willing to talk,” Van Nest says. Gallo counsel Steven Williams disagrees vehemently. A partner at Burlingame, California � based Cotchett, Pitre, Simon & McCarthy, Williams argues that material provided to the government is inherently public, and its accessibility is particularly important for parties seeking recourse in the civil courts. A ruling by the D.C. Circuit in favor of the settlement privilege “would hide things in the public domain,” Williams says. “These are public documents, and this is the U.S. government we’re talking about.” The EnCana case isn’t the first time that parties have tried to get their hands on documents a company has given to the government. McKesson Corporation, for example, has been battling for years to limit the circulation of an internal investigation its lawyers conducted into alleged fraud at a 1999 acquisition. San Francisco � based McKesson agreed to share the internal report with the government, which was investigating the problems at the acquired company. Shareholders and other parties subsequently argued that they should also get copies of the report, since it lost its attorney-client privilege when McKesson gave it to the government. But while Gallo was able to circumvent EnCana with its subpoena of the CFTC, the McKesson shareholders are trying to get the report directly from the company.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.