In re Pacific Pictures Corp. Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained

Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...

In re Pacific Pictures Corp. | 679 F.3d 1121 (2012)

Like Superman protecting Metropolis from Lex Luther, the attorney client privilege protects communications between clients and their attorneys. However, like Kryptonite, voluntary disclosure of these communications generally destroys the privilege. In the case of In re Pacific Pictures Corporation, the Ninth Circuit considered whether selective waiver of the privilege in government investigations also destroys the privilege.

Marc Toberoff was a Hollywood producer and attorney. Toberoff approached the heirs of Jerome Siegel and Joe Shuster, the creators of Superman, and offered to manage their preexisting litigation against D C Comics over the Superman intellectual property rights.

Around this time, Toberoff hired David Michaels, an attorney, to work for him. Michaels stole several documents related to the Superman case and sent them to D C. Michaels also wrote a cover letter detailing Toberoff’s alleged plan to take the Superman intellectual property rights for himself.

D C didn’t look at the documents but instead entrusted them to an outside attorney and sought the right to review them during discovery. Toberoff refused to disclose the documents, claiming attorney client privilege. In two thousand seven, a magistrate judge ordered partial disclosure of the documents, including Michaels’s cover letter. Toberoff substantially complied with the order.

In twenty ten, D C sued Toberoff, alleging that he interfered with its contractual relationship with the heirs. This claim was based primarily on the allegations contained in Michaels’s cover letter.

Toberoff requested that the U S attorney’s office conduct a formal investigation into Michaels and the theft of his files. The U S attorney subpoenaed the stolen documents and assured Toberoff that, if he voluntarily complied, the documents wouldn’t be provided to nongovernmental third parties unless required by law or court order. Toberoff complied and disclosed the documents.

D C then requested the documents, arguing that Toberoff waived attorney client privilege through disclosure to the U S attorney’s office, a third party. The magistrate judge agreed, finding that a party can’t selectively waive attorney client privilege in government investigations. Toberoff petitioned the Ninth Circuit for a writ of mandamus.

Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/in-re-p...

The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...

Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/in-re-p...

Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_...

Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...

Facebook ►   / quimbeedotcom  

Twitter ►   / quimbeedotcom  

#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries