![]() ![]() Plaintiffs in this multi-district litigation proceeding (“MDL”) bring claims relating to the subject matter of the Valukas Report, namely the ignition switch defect. The result was a written report (the “Valukas Report”) that New GM submitted to Congress, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”), among others. As part of their investigation, Valukas and his colleagues reviewed a vast number of documents and interviewed over 200 New GM employees and former employees, among others. Shortly after the first recall, New GM retained the law firm Jenner & Block LLP (“Jenner”) and its chairperson, Anton Valukas, to conduct an internal investigation into the defect and the delays in recalling the affected vehicles. FURMAN, United States District Judge: Less than one year ago, General Motors LLC (“New GM”) announced the first of what would be become many recalls of its vehicles based on an ignition switch defect. 86 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -x IN RE: 14-MD-2543 (JMF) GENERAL MOTORS LLC IGNITION SWITCH LITIGATION OPINION AND ORDER This Document Relates To All Actions -x JESSE M. In re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation Doc. Furman on ) As per chambers, filed in all Member Cases: 1:14-md-02543-JMF et al., and 14mc2543. ![]() Acco rdingly, and for the reasons explained above, Plaintiffs' application to compel disclosure of the Interview Materials and other items is DENIED, except that New GM is ordered to disclose, within two weeks, the names of all witnesses who were interviewed by Valukas and his colleagues but not mentioned by name in the Valukas Report itself. And, in the final analysis, the cost of withholding the materials is outweighed by the benefits to society of "encourag 'full and frank communication betwee n attorneys and their clients and thereby promot broader public interests in the observance of law and the administration of justice.'" Swidler & Berlin v. on wits borrowed from the adversary." Hickman, 329 U.S. Moreover, in the memorable words of Justice Robert Jackson, "iscovery was hardly intended to enable a learned profession to perform its functions. at 395, as Plaintiffs themselves are free to question the witnesses who were interviewed by the Valukas team. In reality, however, it "puts in no worse position than if the communications had never taken place," Upjohn, 449 U.S. The Court acknowledges that that ruling deprives Plain tiffs of material that might be helpful in the preparation of their cases. Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, the Court agrees with New GM that the Interview Materials are protected by both the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product doctrine. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |