United States v. All Assets Held at Bank Julius Baer & Co., 270 F. Supp. 3d 220

Background

The government served Interrogatories 9 and 10 on Claimant Pavel Lazarenko; Interrogatory 9 sought identification of persons with knowledge and was answered (listing many individuals).
Interrogatory 10 asked Claimant to identify all persons interviewed by Claimant or from whom Claimant obtained statements, with dates, locations, contact information, facts provided, and documents obtained.
Claimant initially identified a small number of statements and later supplemented to identify one statement and stated counsel had spoken to “certain persons” from Interrogatory 9 but refused to identify who.
The government sought an order compelling a complete supplemental answer to Interrogatory 10 (names, interview details, and facts disclosed); Claimant refused, citing work-product privilege and counsel strategy.
At a hearing, Claimant represented he would produce witness statements he receives and would supplement Interrogatory 9 and other responses as required by Rule 26(e).
The magistrate judge denied the government’s motion, holding that requiring disclosure of who counsel interviewed and interview logistics would invade work-product protection; factual information learned, however, must be produced via proper discovery (e.g., Interrogatory 9 or witness statements).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the identities of persons interviewed by Claimant's counsel are discoverable	Gov: Interrogatory 10 should compel identification of individuals counsel interviewed to narrow hundreds of potential witnesses	Lazarenko: Disclosure would reveal counsel's work product, legal theories, and strategy	Denied — names of interviewees contacted by counsel are protected by work-product privilege here
Whether dates/locations of counsel-conducted interviews are discoverable	Gov: Dates/locations would help cull witness list	Lazarenko: Such details are intertwined with counsel's investigation and strategy	Denied — dates/locations of unidentified interviews irrelevant absent names and would reveal strategy
Whether facts learned from interviews must be disclosed	Gov: Seeks the substantive facts provided by each interviewee	Lazarenko: Will provide factual information via appropriate discovery but refuses to identify which counsel interviewed	Held in part — Claimant must disclose factual information via proper requests or produced witness statements, but not reveal which witnesses counsel interviewed
Whether producing similar information by claimant creates waiver because plaintiff produced analogous info	Gov: Plaintiff provided similar responses to Claimant previously and therefore should compel reciprocal disclosure	Lazarenko: Plaintiff could have withheld under work-product; reciprocal disclosure not required	Denied — Claimant need not produce counsel-interviewee identities simply because plaintiff provided similar responses

Key Cases Cited

Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 432 F.3d 366 (D.C. Cir.) (broad interpretation of work-product doctrine)
Dir., Office of Thrift Supervision v. Vinson & Elkins, LLP, 124 F.3d 1304 (D.C. Cir.) (opinion work product is virtually undiscoverable)
In re Sealed Case, 676 F.3d 793 (D.C. Cir.) (distinguishing fact work product from opinion work product)
Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947) (attorney work product protection and need for privacy in case preparation)
Alexander v. FBI, 192 F.R.D. 12 (D.D.C. 2000) (names of interviewees held discoverable where limited to whether investigator spoke to specifically identified persons)
United States v. Amerada Hess Corp., 619 F.2d 980 (3d Cir.) (recognizing limits on privilege for mere lists of interviewees)
In re Matter of Grand Jury, 633 F.2d 282 (3d Cir.) (treating lists of interviewees in context of privilege)