Patrick v. City of Chicago, 154 F. Supp. 3d 705

Patrick, convicted in 1995 for two murders, home invasions, and armed robbery, received life without parole and pursued post-conviction relief beginning in 1999.
The 1999 petition alleged ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, including failure to investigate alibi witnesses and to challenge police coercion of Patrick’s statement.
Patrick attached a letter and affidavits to the petition describing conversations with his lawyers about alibi witnesses and the coerced confession; no protective order was sought in those proceedings.
In 1999, Patrick’s petition and attachments became public record; discovery later sought to depose Patrick and his former attorney regarding those conversations.
The federal case (brought May 2014) claims 42 U.S.C. § 1983 wrongful acts by arresting officers; defendants sought discovery of privileged communications and work product from the 1995 criminal case.
Judge conducted an in camera review of work-product materials; concluded some materials are discoverable under waiver, while others remain protected.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
What law governs waiver of attorney-client privilege?	Patrick argues state law governs waiver in a federal case.	Defendants contend federal common law governs privilege questions.	Federal common law governs the attorney-client privilege waiver.
Scope of the 1999 waiver in the Patrick petition	Waiver should be limited to the proceedings in which disclosed.	Waiver should extend to all topics disclosed in the petition and attachments.	Waiver is broad and covers alibi, statements, and coercion topics disclosed in the petition and attachments.
Did Taylor v. City of Chicago support implied waiver in this case?	Taylor supports broader implied waiver in Brady-like contexts.	Taylor is not applicable to this civil-rights case.	Taylor is not controlling; its logic does not compel the same result here.
What documents/work product are discoverable after waiver?	Waiver should permit broad access to communications and related work product.	Waiver should be narrow and limited to disclosed topics; some work product remains protected.	Certain disclosed conversations must be turned over; other items (e.g., opinion work product) remain protected.

United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation, 564 U.S. 162 (2011) (federal common law governs attorney-client privilege questions)
Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (1981) (client-attorney communications in confidence promote truth-seeking)
United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225 (1975) (waiver and privilege concepts; fair use in discovery)
Bittaker v. Woodford, 331 F.3d 715 (9th Cir.2003) (implied broad waiver in habeas context; extension to civil case rejected here)
United States v. Bey, 772 F.3d 1099 (7th Cir.2014) (privilege scope and protections in appellate contexts)
In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 219 F.3d 175 (2d Cir.2000) (subject-matter waiver and fairness considerations)