PHOENIX (Legal Newsline) – 3M is reiterating that a company that finds plaintiffs for class action lawyers is not entitled to attorney-client privilege, as the company attempts to figure out specifics on the many lawsuits it faces over ear plugs.
3M has asked an Arizona federal judge to order Top Class Actions - which operates a website with attorney advertising, contact forms and articles on certain areas of litigation – to comply with its demands for more information.
TCA says it’s communications with possible plaintiffs are protected by attorney-client privilege, despite the fact that it is not actually a law firm.
“TCA asserts that communications submitted by potential claimants through its website are entitled to protection of the attorney-client privilege because TCA is an agent of plaintiffs’ lawyers. Not so,” 3M’s lawyers wrote Thursday in the supposed final brief before a ruling is reached.
“To qualify as an agent for privilege purposes, the agent must ‘assist the attorney in providing legal advice.’ Indeed, TCA’s own website plainly states that it is not engaged in assisting the attorney in providing legal advice, and TCA makes clear in its response to 3M’s motion that it does not assist in providing legal advice.”
The dispute broke out in a multidistrict litigation against 3M over the ear plugs it sold to the federal government for use by members of the military. Their alleged ineffectiveness left veterans with hearing loss, thousands of lawsuits claim.
TCA’s site contains attorney advertising and articles written by TCA writers. Some pages have contact forms for potential clients whose information is passed on to firms that bought the ads.
“The web pages are replete with information explaining that the form content will be sent to a lawyer, confidentially, so that the potential plaintiff’s claim can be evaluated by a lawyer,” TCA’s July 9 response to 3M’s motion says.
The terms say “it is intended that the information will be protected by attorney-client privilege, but it is possible that Top Class Actions or such attorneys may be ordered by a court of law to produce such information in certain legal situations.”
TCA says attorney-client privilege applies to the records sought by 3M – that potential plaintiffs had a strong expectation their communications would be privileged.
3M’s original subpoena sought:
-Documents related to submissions to TCA’s website;
-Documents relating to the advertising directed to prospective plaintiffs;
-Communications between plaintiffs firms and TCA relating to prospective plaintiffs;
-Documents relating to the referral of prospective plaintiffs; and
-Documents regarding any financial interest or ownership any plaintiffs law firm has in TCA.
On Feb. 21, TCA made several objections to the subpoena but agreements were eventually made except for information TCA felt was protected by attorney-client privilege.
On May 7, TCA produced more documents, along with a privilege log identifying what it was holding back or redacting on the basis of privilege. It said it would not produce that information without a court order, so 3M filed the Arizona motion.
“TCA misconstrues its role,” 3M’s lawyers wrote on June 19 in a motion filed in Arizona federal court. “First, TCA is not a lawyer that owes a duty of confidentiality to its clients under the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct.
“TCA’s clients are law firms, not the potential claimants in the Combat Arms Earplugs litigation.”