JULIO ANTONIO PEREZ VIEYRA v. QUEST DIAGNOSTIC INCORPORATED
2:19-md-02904
D.N.J.Dec 9, 2024Background
- This multidistrict litigation arises from a data breach suffered by American Medical Collection Agency (AMCA), compromising the personal information of approximately 11 million individuals.
- Plaintiffs are patients of Quest Diagnostics who allege their information was compromised due to Quest (and later Optum360’s) use of AMCA as a vendor.
- Following discovery disputes, Plaintiffs sought to compel Quest and Optum to produce documents withheld under claims of attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine, mostly concerning post-breach investigations.
- The Special Master conducted an in camera review of the disputed documents and heard arguments from both parties on the privilege and discoverability of the materials.
- The key factual focus: whether these investigations and resulting documents were conducted for business reasons or for purposes of facilitating legal advice or litigation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether documents related to Quest's dark web investigation post-breach are privileged | Facts about the breach and Quest's investigation are not privileged; investigation was routine business | Investigation was at counsel's direction, thus privileged | Mixed: Purely factual investigative documents (and some emails) must be produced; communications clearly for legal advice may be withheld |
| Whether Optum's risk assessments of third-party vendors are privileged/work product | Risk assessments are routine business, not privileged; should be produced | Counsel directed and requested assessments for providing legal advice, post-litigation | Mixed: Email communications and new risk assessments post-breach (directed by counsel) protected; historical, business-created PowerPoints subject to production with redactions |
| Whether the work-product doctrine shields documents created post-breach | Documents would have existed in the ordinary course of business irrespective of litigation | Documents were made in response to litigation or regulatory threats, for counsel's use | Only new, litigation-driven materials withheld; older, business-created materials must be disclosed |
| Whether assertion of privilege was waived by late logging/production | Defendants failed to timely log; privilege waived | Privilege maintained; timely asserted in logs and correspondence | No waiver found; privilege claims properly preserved |
Key Cases Cited
- Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (U.S. 1981) (attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications, but not underlying facts).
- Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Republic of the Philippines, 951 F.2d 1414 (3d Cir. 1991) (attorney-client privilege is narrowly construed; the proponent bears the burden of showing its application).
- In re Ford Motor Co., 110 F.3d 954 (3d Cir. 1997) (privilege applies only when communication was for securing legal, not business, advice).
- Cendant Corp. Sec. Litig., 343 F.3d 658 (3d Cir. 2003) (work product doctrine shelters attorney's mental processes; only applies if materials prepared due to litigation risk).
- Montgomery Acad. v. Kohn, 50 F.Supp.2d 344 (D.N.J. 1999) (party asserting privilege must show communication was confidential and for legal advice).
- Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Weintraub, 471 U.S. 343 (U.S. 1985) (corporate attorney-client privilege applies to communications effectuating legal advice).