5 dezembro 2020
For the common interest doctrine to apply, most district courts require (1) communications to have been made as part of a joint defence effort; (2) the statements were used to intensify efforts; and (3) the prerogative has not been abandoned.  In any situation of common interest, the agreement will determine the beginning and end of joint efforts. In addition, the early implementation of the Common Interest Agreement allows them to protect themselves from partial disclosures by protecting all communications from the beginning to the end of the engagement. Fourth, lawyers should, in accordance with the common interest agreement, have a very specific purpose for sharing any information between legal advisors and among themselves. At each stage of litigation preparation, investigation, lobbying or business transaction, a lawyer should be able to determine precisely how the disclosure relates to the relevant common interest. The lawyer may even contain a brief statement of the purpose of sharing privileged material in communication with other lawyers. Similarly, the fourth circle found that the doctrine of the common interest was not in the context of a grand jury convening in which documents were requested by telecommunications employees referring to an internal investigation by the telecommunications company.  In this case, the staff and the company entered into a joint defence contract in December 2001, but the interviews in question (the content the parties wanted to protect) took place between March and June 2001.  As a general rule, joint defence agreements in memory also cannot work retroactively.
At least part of the court`s formula for determining the legitimacy of so-called “common defence efforts” rests on the procedural attitude of the litigation. In assessing the strength of common interests between the parties, the courts are very different in that they consider the advancement of active litigation. In most jurisdictions, for example, a “sensitive risk of litigation” that exists at the time of disclosure is sufficient for the court to expand the privilege of the common interest.