Majority
Plaintiff did not meet his burden of establishing that the joint defense agreement in question was protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege. The agreement is not a communication from an attorney to a client “made for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of legal advice or services, in the course of a professional relationship” (Rossi v Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Greater N.Y., 73 NY2d 588 , 593 [1989]; see Muriel Siebert & Co., Inc. v Intuit Inc., 32 AD3d 284 [2006], affd 8 NY3d 506 [2007]). Rather, it is a statement of the parties’ intention that all information they share with each other remain subject to the attorney-client privilege, despite their disclosure to each other. Its drafter is not identified, and it specifically states that it creates no attorney-client relationship. Furthermore, in the absence of an attorney-client privilege, the common-interest rule does not apply (U.S. Bank N.A. v APP Intl. Fin. Co., 33 AD3d 430 , 431 [2006]; United States v Schwimmer, 892 F2d 237 , 243-244 [1989]; see Pem-America, Inc. v Sunham Home Fashions, LLC, 2007 WL 3226156 , *2, 2007 US Dist LEXIS 80548 , *5-6 [SD NY 2007]).
Although the motion court did not reach this issue, we further find that the work-product doctrine would not preclude discovery. There is no indication that the agreement was prepared by counsel acting as such, and it contains only standard language not uniquely reflecting a lawyer’s learning and professional skills, including legal research, analysis, conclusions, legal theory or strategy (see Plimpton v Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co., 50 AD3d 532 , 533 [2008]; Brooklyn Union Gas Co. v American Home Assur. Co., 23 AD3d 190 [2005]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Catterson, DeGrasse and ManzanetDaniels, JJ.
Cases cited
- Rossi v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield 73 NY2d 588 at 593 p. 413
- Muriel Siebert & Co. v. Intuit Inc. 32 AD3d 284 p. 413
- Muriel Siebert & Co. v. Intuit Inc. 8 NY3d 506 p. 413
- U.S. Bank National Ass'n v. APP International Finance Co. 33 AD3d 430 at 431 p. 413
- Brooklyn Union Gas Co. v. American Home Assurance Co. 23 AD3d 190 p. 413