DOJ-OGR-00008241.jpg
Extracted Text (OCR)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document528 Filed 12/06/21 Page5of8
to divulge their conversations with counsel about how significant their attorneys assess the benefits
of immunity to be.
In such cases, it is not that these issues are irrelevant to the Government or to the defense.
They are highly relevant. But the attorney-client communications are privileged, and the
attorney’s advice is not presumptively expected to be shared with the Government because the
witness will testify for the Government. Instead, the client makes factual statements about the
issue—not about the attorney-client communications—which the Government turns over to the
defense. See, e.g., In re General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litig., 80 F. Supp. 3d 521, 528
(S.D.N.Y. 2015) (“It is well established, however, that the attorney-client privilege protects
communications rather than information.”). The fact that “certain information might later be
disclosed to others does not, by itself, create the factual inference that the communications were
not intended to be confidential at the time they were made.” Jd. at 529 (emphasis in original,
internal quotation marks omitted). In this case, it would have been improper for the Government
to ask Jane how Glassman had advised her regarding her decision whether to assist the
Government.”
Second, Glassman did not waive any privilege over Jane’s communications with him
through his comments to the Government. The reason is that Jane, not Glassman, was holder of
the privilege, and it was not Glassman’s to waive. See In re von Bulow, 828 F.2d at 100. And
? United States v. Bergonzi, 216 F.R.D. 487 (N.D. Cal. 2003), on which the defendant relies (Def.
Letter at 3), is inapposite. In that case, a company agreed to turn over certain documents to the
Government “before the documents had been prepared.” /d. at 493. Accordingly, the company
could not assert privilege over the documents, because they were made “for the purpose of relaying
communication to a third party.” Jd. There is no reason to believe that Glassman’s legal advice
to Jane was made with the intent to turn over that legal advice to the Government.
5
DOJ-OGR-00008241
Extracted Information
Dates
Document Details
| Filename | DOJ-OGR-00008241.jpg |
| File Size | 732.4 KB |
| OCR Confidence | 94.2% |
| Has Readable Text | Yes |
| Text Length | 2,167 characters |
| Indexed | 2026-02-03 17:32:53.172131 |