Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch7_p00099.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-3 Filed 01/08/24 Page 14 of 21 book about legal representation and reveal other confidences on television program), modified, 828 F.2d 94 (2d Cir. 1987). Here, the communications are being revealed not accidentally but rather as part of a deliberate legal strategy on behalf of the Defendant in an effort to obtain summary judgment. It is Defendant’s attorneys in this very case who have placed the Barden Declaration into evidence and later moved for summary judgment. And, of course, Defendant has not made any effort to withdraw that Declaration, even after the attorney-client waiver issue was raised at oral argument during the summary judgment hearing and later through the filing of this motion. In these circumstances, the privilege has obviously been waived. See In re Pioneer Hi- Bred Intl. Inc., 238 F.3d 1370, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (counsel for party may be deposed by opposing party as fact witness without waiving attorney-client privilege, but privilege is waived if counsel discloses privileged matters); Leybold-Heraeus Technologies, Inc. v. Midwest Instrument Co., Inc., 118 F.R.D. 609, 614 (E.D. Wis. 1987) (where attorney took stand, privilege waived for information necessary to cross-examine attorney). To be sure, parts of Barden’s Declaration appear to have been cleverly written in an attempt obscure the fact that he is revealing attorney-client communications. But just as using the words “plan” and “intent” as a coy proxy for the phrase “legal strategy” does not render that “plan” or “intent” something other than legal strategy, swapping the word “intended” for “advised” and does not change the fact that Barden’s “intentions” were rendered as legal advice to his client. To the extent that any of Barden’s communications with Defendant revealed his legal strategy work product (which the Court can easily determine based on its previous in camera review), the disclosures in the Barden Declaration waive the privilege over those 10