Renfield Corp. v. Remy Martin & Co.

Renfield Corporation (plaintiff) filed an antitrust action against E. Remy Martin and Co., S.A. (Remy) and others (defendants) in federal district court. In the course of discovery, Remy withheld a number of requested documents under the assertion of the attorney-client privilege. Remy claimed that the attorney-client privilege attached to communications between Remy officials and employees of Remy identified as French “in-house counsel.” At the time of the dispute, in-house counsel under the French legal structure did not serve all of the same functions of an American attorney admitted to the bar, but French in-house counsel did have legal training and were permitted to give legal advice to corporate officers. Nonetheless, Renfield challenged Remy’s invocation of attorney-client privilege and moved to compel production of the documents or for an in camera inspection of the documents. Renfield and Remy agreed that the provisions of the Hague Evidence Convention (the convention) governed the discovery of documents located in France for use in federal litigation in the United States. However, Renfield argued that the attorney-client privilege did not apply to the communications with in-house counsel, because the provisions of the convention limited the available privileges to only those recognized by the state of origin or the state of execution that would otherwise apply by virtue of conflict-of-laws principles. Under French law, attorney-client privilege would not have applied to the documents. Remy argued that the convention expanded the availability of privileges to include both those recognized by the forum state and those of the execution state, and thus American attorney-client privilege could be invoked. The district court considered the motion to compel.