PHOENIX (Legal Newsline) – Lawyers leading the thousands of lawsuits against 3M over the ear plugs it sold to the U.S. military want to get involved in the company’s effort to figure out where all those clients came from.
The Burnett Law Firm of Houston, Aylstock Witkin of Florida and Ciresi Conlin of Minneapolis filed a motion to intervene Sept. 17 in Phoenix federal court, where 3M is seeking to enforce a records request on a website called Top Class Actions.
The site, in addition to news stories about mass torts and class actions, includes contact forms in order to connect potential plaintiffs with personal injury lawyers.
The three firms seeking to intervene are lead counsel in a multidistrict litigation proceeding in Pensacola, Fla., where more than 200,000 cases are consolidated. They want to assert the attorney-client and work-product privileges on whatever 3M is trying to recover.
“The information that MDL Plaintiffs shared with TCA was communicated with the understanding that it would be transmitted to an attorney and that it was protected by the attorney-client privilege,” the motion says.
“Given 3M’s position that TCA does not have standing to assert the attorney-client or work-product privilege, whereas the client has standing to assert these privileges, MDL Plaintiffs seek to intervene to assert both privileges.”
3M’s ear plugs were allegedly defective and caused hearing loss.
CA says its communications with possible plaintiffs are protected by attorney-client privilege, despite the fact that it is not actually a law firm.
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 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.