In re Chevron Corp.

650 F.3d 276 (2011)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

In re Chevron Corp.

United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
650 F.3d 276 (2011)


Chevron Corporation and two of its attorneys (collectively, Chevron) (plaintiffs) sought discovery in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania of a client file from attorney Joseph Kohn and his law firm, Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C. (KSG) (defendants). Chevron’s application was based on a statute authorizing a federal district court to order a person who resides in the district to give testimony or produce documents for use in a foreign or international tribunal, subject to the limitation that the person not be compelled to testify or produce documents in violation of any legally applicable privilege. Kohn and KSG represented the plaintiffs in an environmental class action in Ecuador known as the Lago Agrio litigation. Chevron was a defendant in the Lago Agrio litigation. In this proceeding, Chevron sought access to a file of Kohn’s that Chevron believed would contain communications relevant to its position that the plaintiffs in the Lago Agrio litigation had procured a judgment by fraud. The Lago Agrio plaintiffs intervened in this matter and claimed that Kohn’s file was protected by the attorney-client privilege. However, the Lago Agrio plaintiffs had participated in the production of a documentary called Crude, which chronicled the Lago Agrio litigation. Chevron had previously obtained access to hundreds of hours of outtakes from the filming of Crude, which included footage of attorney meetings in which ostensibly confidential matters were discussed. Chevron argued that the filming of the meetings effected a broad subject-matter waiver of the privilege for all of Kohn’s communications related to the litigation. The district court agreed with Chevron, stating that a client’s voluntary disclosure of privileged communications waived the privilege as to other communications relating to the same matter. The court also noted that permitting a client to waive the privilege for favorable communications while withholding related documents from disclosure allowed the privilege to be used as both a sword and a shield, which is an abuse that courts should discourage. Thus, the district court ordered production of the file, and the Lago Agrio plaintiffs appealed.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Greenberg, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 736,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 736,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 736,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership