United States: Preserving the Corporate Privilege in Internal Investigations: DC Circuit Clarifies Scope of the Privilege in Important Series of Decisions

Last Updated: September 3 2015
Article by Anjan Sahni and Justin Goodyear

For the second time in just over a year, the DC Circuit granted the extraordinary remedy of a writ of mandamus to protect a company's assertion of privilege over materials relating to an internal investigation. In a significant case concerning the application of the corporate privilege – and one in which WilmerHale represented amici arguing against the lower court ruling – the Court vacated the denial of the protection of the privilege and warned, "If allowed to stand, the District Court's rulings would ring alarm bells in corporate general counsel offices throughout the country." In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., No. 14-5319, slip op. (DC Cir. Aug. 11, 2015) ("KBR II")
The 2014 Decision – KBR I  

KBR, a defense contractor, had conducted an internal investigation into allegations that it defrauded the United States by inflating costs and accepting kickbacks while administering military contracts in Iraq. In connection with a False Claims Act suit against KBR, the plaintiff sought documents related to the company's investigation, which KBR opposed on the basis of the attorney-client privilege. After the District Court rejected KBR's assertion of privilege, the company sought a writ of mandamus, which the DC Circuit granted. See In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 756 F.3d 754 (DC Cir. 2014) ("KBR I"). In its opinion, the DC Circuit cited to WilmerHale's amicus brief on behalf of a coalition of business associations, which criticized the sea change in privilege doctrine reflected in the District Court's opinion.

The Court of Appeals analyzed and rejected four separate justifications that the District Court had asserted in ordering the documents produced. First, with respect to the District Court's finding that KBR's internal investigation was conducted by in-house counsel, the DC Circuit clarified that the Supreme Court's seminal decision in Upjohn, recognizing the corporate privilege, "does not hold or imply that the involvement of outside counsel is a necessary predicate for the privilege to apply," and that "a lawyer's status as in-house counsel does not dilute" the force of the privilege. Second, the Court of Appeals rejected the District Court's reliance on the fact that the interviews had been conducted by non-attorneys, holding instead that "communications made by and to non-attorneys serving as agents of attorneys in internal investigations are routinely protected by the attorney-client privilege." Third, the DC Circuit concluded that KBR's failure to inform employees that the purpose of the interview was to assist the company in obtaining legal advice was of no moment, as "nothing in Upjohn requires a company to use magic words to its employees" to avail the privilege in an internal investigation and, in any event, employees were told not to discuss the interviews without the approval of the legal department. Finally, the Court held that "[s]o long as obtaining or providing legal advice was one of the significant purposes of the internal investigation," the privilege applies, "even if there were also other purposes for the investigation and even if the investigation was mandated" by DoD regulation.
The 2015 Decision – KBR II
On remand, the District Court found that the "same contested documents" were discoverable because KBR had "impliedly waived" the attorney-client privilege and work product protections. Once again, the company sought a writ of mandamus, which the DC Circuit again granted. WilmerHale again supported the petitioner in KBR II on behalf of a broader coalition of business associations concerned with the uncertainty engendered by the District Court's opinion.
KBR II has three principal holdings. The first ruling concerns the interplay between the privilege and Federal Rule of Evidence 612, which provides that where a witness uses a writing to refresh his memory before testifying, an adverse party may have the writing produced "if the court decides that justice requires" production. The District Court had concluded that certain documents generated by KBR's investigation must be produced under Rule 612 on the theory that the company had waived attorney-client and work product protections when its 30(b)(6) witness had "reviewed the documents in preparation for his deposition" on the topic of the internal investigation. Rejecting this conclusion, the DC Circuit held that the District Court's reasoning would allow the privilege "to be defeated routinely by a counter-party noticing a deposition on the topic of the privileged nature of the internal investigation," thereby "potentially upend[ing] certain settled understandings and practices about the protections" governing internal investigations.
Second, KBR II addressed whether the company had effected an "at issue" waiver or "implied waiver" by making certain references to its internal investigation in a summary judgment brief. "Under the common-law doctrine of implied waiver, the attorney-client privilege is waived when the client places otherwise privileged matters in controversy." In a footnote in its summary judgment filing, KBR described aspects of its investigation process without explicitly revealing its findings. Specifically, the brief stated that the company (1) generally reported findings of wrongdoing to the government, (2) had investigated the plaintiff's allegations of kickbacks, but (3) had made no report of misconduct to the government. The District Court found that KBR had implicitly argued that its investigation had found no wrongdoing, and thus had "actively sought a positive inference in its favor based on what . . . the [investigation] documents show." According to the District Court, KBR had impliedly disclosed the conclusion of its internal investigation. Recognizing that the issue of implied waiver presented "a more difficult question," the DC Circuit nevertheless rejected the District Court's finding because (1) KBR did not intend to make an "unconditional disclosure" of the results of its investigation; (2) KBR's reference to its investigation was only a "recitation of facts in the motion's introduction, not in an argument or claim concerning the privileged documents' contents"; and (3) as the movant for summary judgment, all inferences at this stage based on the contents of the privileged documents were to be drawn against KBR.
Third, the District Court had concluded that substantial portions of the investigation-related documents constituted fact work product, and that the plaintiff had made an adequate showing to overcome the work product protection. The DC Circuit agreed with the District Court that not "everything in an internal investigation is attorney-client privileged," and that pure fact work product may be discoverable upon a showing of "substantial need" and "undue hardship." It nevertheless concluded that the lower court had incorrectly compelled production of documents—including a report summarizing employee statements—that went well beyond pure fact work product and implicated both privileged materials and the mental impressions of investigators.
Broadly speaking, this series of decisions helpfully clarifies the scope of the corporate privilege and its potential waiver in internal investigations. The recent decision in KBR II, in particular, is an important reminder to remain vigilant about inadvertently effecting an implied waiver of a company's privilege. Although the DC Circuit ultimately upheld KBR's assertion of the privilege, it observed that the company's discussion of its internal investigation, albeit brief, presented a relatively close call. A description of a privileged investigation in the course of litigation may be perceived—as it was by the District Court—as implicitly trying to convey the investigation's conclusions. In that regard, KBR II reinforces the need to consider carefully how privileged materials—whether arising from an internal investigation or otherwise—are used in litigation or in discussions with the government.
WilmerHale's Carl Nichols, Elisebeth Collins, and Adam Klein filed the amici briefs in both proceedings.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions