{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "3",
    "document_number": "521",
    "date": "December 3, 2021",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 521 Filed 12/03/21 Page 3 of 5\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nDecember 3, 2021\nPage 3\nto the attorney are intended by the client to be made public or revealed to third persons,\nobviously the element of confidentiality is wanting.”) (8th ed. Jan. 2020 update). Jane’s\nmotivation for cooperating with the government and testifying against Ms. Maxwell is essential\nto the government’s assessment of Jane’s credibility and its preparation for her crossexamination.\nPredictably, then, Mr. Glassman shared with the government the advice he gave to Jane,\nso the information was not “in fact kept confidential.” See Erie, 473 F.3d at 419; see also United\nStates v. Bergonzi, 216 F.R.D. 487, 494 (N.D. Cal. 2003) (addressing assertion of attorney-client\nprivilege in respect to documents sought by the defendant in a criminal case and holding that\nprivilege did not apply because there was no evidence “the Company intended the\ncommunications to remain confidential, as it must have in order for the privilege to apply in the\nfirst instance” and because “the Company failed to meet its burden of persuading the Court that\nthe attorney-client privilege applies to the documents sought by Defendants”). The attorneyclient privilege thus does not apply.\nBut even if the privilege did apply, the privilege was waived. “It is well-established that\nvoluntary disclosure of confidential material to a third party generally results in forfeiture of any\napplicable attorney-client privilege.” United States v. Ghavami, 882 F. Supp. 2d 532, 537\n(S.D.N.Y. 2012). That is exactly what happened here. Mr. Glassman voluntarily communicated\nwith the government that he advised Jane to cooperate with the government because it would\n“help her case,” thereby waiving the attorney-client privilege. And as Fed. R. Evid. 502(a)\nrecognizes, “[w]hen the disclosure [of confidential information] is made in a federal proceeding\nor to a federal office,” that generally “waives the attorney-client privilege or work-product\nDOJ-OGR-00008208",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 521 Filed 12/03/21 Page 3 of 5",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nDecember 3, 2021\nPage 3",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "to the attorney are intended by the client to be made public or revealed to third persons,\nobviously the element of confidentiality is wanting.”) (8th ed. Jan. 2020 update). Jane’s\nmotivation for cooperating with the government and testifying against Ms. Maxwell is essential\nto the government’s assessment of Jane’s credibility and its preparation for her crossexamination.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Predictably, then, Mr. Glassman shared with the government the advice he gave to Jane,\nso the information was not “in fact kept confidential.” See Erie, 473 F.3d at 419; see also United\nStates v. Bergonzi, 216 F.R.D. 487, 494 (N.D. Cal. 2003) (addressing assertion of attorney-client\nprivilege in respect to documents sought by the defendant in a criminal case and holding that\nprivilege did not apply because there was no evidence “the Company intended the\ncommunications to remain confidential, as it must have in order for the privilege to apply in the\nfirst instance” and because “the Company failed to meet its burden of persuading the Court that\nthe attorney-client privilege applies to the documents sought by Defendants”). The attorneyclient privilege thus does not apply.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "But even if the privilege did apply, the privilege was waived. “It is well-established that\nvoluntary disclosure of confidential material to a third party generally results in forfeiture of any\napplicable attorney-client privilege.” United States v. Ghavami, 882 F. Supp. 2d 532, 537\n(S.D.N.Y. 2012). That is exactly what happened here. Mr. Glassman voluntarily communicated\nwith the government that he advised Jane to cooperate with the government because it would\n“help her case,” thereby waiving the attorney-client privilege. And as Fed. R. Evid. 502(a)\nrecognizes, “[w]hen the disclosure [of confidential information] is made in a federal proceeding\nor to a federal office,” that generally “waives the attorney-client privilege or work-product",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008208",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Alison J. Nathan",
      "Jane",
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Mr. Glassman"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Company",
      "government"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "N.D. Cal",
      "S.D.N.Y"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "December 3, 2021",
      "Jan. 2020"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 521",
      "DOJ-OGR-00008208"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 3 of a 5-page document."
}