Witness Interviews In Internal Investigations: The US Perspective – Trials & Appeals & Compensation

13.1 Introduction

The success of an internal investigation often hinges on the
employee (or former employee) interview. While the interview itself
may be long or short, it always requires careful consideration and
preparation.

Internal investigations are conducted in many different
circumstances and for many different reasons. An investigation may
be focused on a single instance of alleged misconduct or on the
root causes of a corporate failure where no particular individual
is believed to be culpable. It may be purely internal, with or
without a whistleblower allegation, or it may follow a criminal
subpoena or regulatory agency request. Investigations are highly
fact-specific, and most interview practices should be tailored
accordingly. There are, however, key considerations that typically
apply to all witness interviews. This chapter outlines certain best
practices in preparing for and conducting witness interviews and
memorialising findings.

13.2 Preparing for the interview

13.2.1 Timing

At the outset of an internal investigation, it is tempting to
move immediately to interviews, as that may seem the shortest path
to learning the key facts. While that sometimes makes sense,
jumping into interviews without proper preparation can be
counterproductive.

Generally speaking, it is advisable to conduct most interviews
after a thorough review and analysis of the documentary evidence.
This allows the practitioner to conduct interviews with a more
thorough understanding of the facts and to question witnesses about
key documents, leading to more developed findings. This can delay
the investigation, but it can also obviate the need to conduct two
or more rounds of interviews, reducing business disruption and
investigation costs. In some instances, conducting interviews
before the documentary evidence is available may be required if,
for example, a key witness is leaving the organisation.

In certain circumstances, it may also make sense to conduct
scoping interviews before document collection and review begins, or
while that stage is ongoing. Scoping interviews may assist in
tailoring the investigation and identifying key evidence or helpful
background, such as relevant policies and practices, the
organisation of a particular department or information relevant to
data collection. Typically, and where possible, the witnesses
interviewed in the investigation scoping phase should not be
connected to the events under investigation. Examples include
individuals involved in document retention or individuals in
control functions who can provide perspective on company policies
and practices.

The decision to conduct scoping interviews should be made
strategically, balancing considerations such as the risk of tipping
off individuals against the benefit of information that can scope
the investigation effectively.

13.2.2 Sequencing

Sequencing of interviews is another important consideration. As
a rule of thumb, key witnesses should be interviewed later in the
investigation so the practitioner can use the information gained
beforehand to question them and to reduce the likelihood of a
second interview (which is not always possible). Supervisors and
senior management should generally be interviewed towards the end
of an investigation as well to develop an understanding of
management’s knowledge of, or participation in, the conduct at
issue. It is critical that interviews of senior managers be
conducted with the fullest understanding of the underlying facts.
Of course, the sequence may need to be adjusted depending on
witness availability.

A related question is whether to conduct certain interviews in
parallel or in rapid succession to reduce the risk that witnesses
tip each other off to the investigation’s focus, certain lines
of questioning or the existence of certain documentary evidence.
Each witness’s recollection should be as pristine as possible,
not muddied by the recollections of others or the opportunity to
reconstruct a narrative, whether intentionally or inadvertently.
Should interviews proceed in parallel, practitioners should
communicate during or immediately after the interviews so that
information learned in one can, where appropriate, be immediately
raised in another. Writing up a bulleted list of key takeaways
immediately after an interview is often helpful; while full
interview memoranda can take longer, bulleted lists are easily
created and digested by colleagues and can be an invaluable way of
quickly sharing key insights.

Where possible, interviews on the same topic should be conducted
around the same time (unless the circumstances merit making an
exception). Scheduling the interviews close together may allow the
practitioner to more accurately weigh differing perspectives and
answers. It also ensures that the investigation is timely
completed. Where the investigation is in response to criminal or
regulatory inquiries, or may require regulatory reporting, it is
essential for the record to be developed and reported promptly.
Moreover, a slow-moving investigation is stressful for interviewees
and can be bad for the morale of the business unit involved.

13.2.3 Length of interview

Before scheduling it, the practitioner should give careful
thought to the appropriate length of the interview. This will
depend on several factors, including the interviewee’s
anticipated level of knowledge, the complexity of the issues and
the amount of documentary evidence to be discussed. Senior managers
are also frequently unwilling to sit for lengthy interviews.
Generally, it is better to book a longer interview slot than the
practitioner thinks is minimally necessary. This provides more time
for completeness and follow-up and reduces the risk of requiring
further interviews. That said, many interviews can be conducted
appropriately in an hour, and they seldom require more than a few
hours.

13.2.4 Notifying the interviewee

13.2.4.1 Advance notice and sending calendar invitations

In a typical internal investigation, the interviewee will
receive advance notice of an interview.

While this notice may seem like a simple, clerical task, the
approach – and who provides the notice – matters. It is
frequently preferable for initial notice to be provided by internal
counsel or an interviewee’s supervisor, rather than external
counsel unknown to the interviewee or senior management. A
telephone call may be preferable to an email, with an email
following to confirm the specifics.

The notifier should be prepared to respond to any queries and
should typically explain that this is confidential, that the
witness need not prepare and that more will be explained during the
meeting. The sender should also be prepared to explain that the
company expects the witness to co-operate. The sender should be
prepared to share all correspondence received from the witness with
the practitioner in advance of the interview.

If the request for an interview is communicated by email, the
timing of the invitation should also be carefully considered.
Sending an invitation at a time when the sender is not available to
respond promptly – for example, a Friday afternoon –
may cause the interviewee unnecessary stress and should be avoided
where practicable. Company guidelines may also dictate the
requisite advance notice period (e.g., three days).

The information provided to a witness is also important. At a
minimum, the invitation should request the interviewee’s
presence at a certain place (if in-person) and time and request
that the interviewee keep the request confidential. Whether to
reveal more context (e.g., advising the interviewee that he or she
is the subject of an internal investigation or previewing the
topics to be covered) should be dictated by the policies and
culture of the particular organisation as well as the needs of the
investigation. If the internal investigation is in response to a
criminal or regulatory inquiry, there should be additional
consideration as to what may be appropriate to share with the
witness.

In many cases it is preferable not to provide the interviewee
with questions or documents in advance. However, in certain
fact-specific cases (e.g., an accounting inquiry where questions
may focus on detailed financial data), it might make sense to
request that a witness, in preparation for the interview, refresh
his or her recollection with respect to a certain issue in advance.
An interview may also be more productive if at least some documents
are shared in advance so the witness is less likely to demur with
respect to recollection of a particular issue, but this must be
balanced against the possibility that the witness gives less than
candid responses based on a narrative constructed around the
documents; one way to mitigate this is to provide some documents in
advance but only to show more sensitive ones in the interview. In
all cases where material is provided in advance, the practitioner
should remember to remind the witness that the investigation is
confidential.

Finally, before sending an interview invitation, the
practitioner should confirm that the organisation has taken
requisite steps (at the outset of the investigation) to preserve
evidence that the witness can access.

13.2.4.2 Impromptu interviews

There may be circumstances when advance notice of an interview
is at odds with the aims of the investigation, for example, in
rapidly developing circumstances, or to avoid the potential for
destruction of evidence. This is a strategic decision that should
be carefully considered.

13.2.5 Co-operation expectations

Companies may generally require that employees participate in
internal investigations, including witness interviews, and this is
typically best practice.² This expectation is often (and
should be) memorialised in a company’s code of conduct, human
resources (HR) manual or similar document. Under some circumstances
an organisation may threaten termination and subsequently dismiss
an employee for refusing to participate in a witness interview.
There may be other circumstances in which a company chooses not to
require an employee to participate in an interview. For example,
the company may not want to put itself in a position of having to
follow through on a termination threat with respect to an employee
who would be very difficult to promptly replace, or it may not want
to risk adverse publicity around a termination or termination
threat.

13.2.6 Interviews by non-lawyers or in-house counsel

If a non-lawyer (e.g., HR personnel) leads an interview, there
is a risk the interview will not be protected by the
attorney–client privilege. To mitigate this, where the
interview is intended to be protected by privilege, company counsel
should take clear steps to ensure that it is. Specifically,
in-house counsel should oversee preparation for the interview,
instruct the non-lawyer to conduct the interview and document that
instruction, as well as the fact that the purpose of the interview
is to obtain facts to provide legal advice to the company.

Likewise, where company counsel conduct an interview, they
should be careful to document that their actions are in a legal
capacity as opposed to acting as business advisers.

Where the company has an expectation of the
attorney–client privilege due to pending litigation or
external investigation, for the avoidance of doubt, it is
preferable for counsel (either internal or external) to conduct the
interview.

13.2.7 Interview attendees: counsel and company
representatives

Generally, the fewer people that attend an interview, the more
willing a witness is to speak freely. That said, it is best
practice for a note-taker, who can later corroborate what happened
if needed, to attend along with the interviewer. Where outside
counsel is conducting the interview, a company representative may
also want to attend. A key strategic question is whether company
counsel’s presence will put the witness at ease, resulting in a
more productive interview, or whether the witness may be less
willing to speak in the presence of a company representative.

Should the company representative plan to join the interview,
the practitioner and the company representative should delineate
their roles, for example, as to when the company representative
will speak, who will pose questions and who will provide the
Upjohn warning.

Another issue is how to address an employee’s request to
have his or her own counsel attend the interview. The company
should consider case by case whether it is legally required to
grant this request.³ In some circumstances, the presence
of individual counsel may result in a waiver of privilege where the
interests of the employee and the company diverge, as they often do
in workplace investigations.⁴ In circumstances where the
interests converge, it may make sense to explore entering into a
common interest agreement and conducting the interview under common
interest privilege.

Issues with individual counsel may arise, and it is best to be
prepared and set ground rules in advance. For example, typically
the employee’s counsel should be asked to make themselves
available at the interviewer’s convenience. Individual counsel
should also be informed that they are present to observe and
provide legal advice as necessary, not to interfere or answer
questions on the individual’s behalf. In addition to discussing
ground rules, the practitioner may also choose to engage with the
employee’s counsel regarding more substantive considerations,
for example, to request that the employee refresh his or her
recollection with respect to a particular subject matter (e.g.,
detailed accounting records) prior to the interview.

13.2.8 Group interviews

Group interviews are generally disfavoured as they can muddy
individual recollections or encourage interviewees to present a
blended, single narrative around key events. However, group scoping
interviews may be appropriate where interviewees may more
efficiently provide background information and do not have
individual exposure. For example, when an interview is focused on
how certain operational procedures work at a company, it may be
helpful to speak with several people involved in different aspects
of those procedures at the same time.

13.2.9 Interviewing former employees

Former employees may possess information relevant or critical to
an internal investigation. However, they are typically under no
obligation to co-operate in an interview unless explicitly
contractually bound (usually in a separation agreement) to do
so.

When a former employee agrees to an interview, the practitioner
should exercise caution to avoid ethical roadblocks. If a former
employee has counsel, that counsel should be informed before the
interview takes place, and the former employee should determine
with individual counsel whether to co-operate. Frequently, former
employees agree to the interview but want their own counsel to be
present, and the company will often agree this is the best course.
Practitioners should also make it clear that they do not represent
the former employee and refrain from providing legal advice,
including advice as to whether the former employee should seek
legal counsel.⁵

A related issue is the sharing of privileged documents with a
former employee, including as part of an investigative interview or
in preparation for testimony. Practitioners should exercise caution
in this regard, as this could result in waiver of privilege under
certain circumstances, including if the communication does not
concern information obtained during the course of the former
employee’s employment or relate to the former employee’s
work⁶ or if the former employee requires the information
as part of a defence against criminal charges.⁷

13.2.10 In-person and remote interviews

One result of the covid-19 pandemic is that an increasing number
of interviews in internal investigations are conducted by
videoconference, saving significant time and money.

When deciding whether to proceed with an interview in-person or
by videoconference, the practitioner should balance time and cost
efficiencies against the potential benefits of an in-person
interview: the opportunity to more accurately judge body language
and credibility; the chance to build a rapport with the witness;
less chance of the witness becoming distracted; the ease of
presenting documents; and a greater guarantee of privacy.
Frequently, after the interview is concluded and as the
participants are preparing to depart, the witness will volunteer
useful additional information.

If the interview is conducted by videoconference, the calendar
invitation should convey an expectation that the interviewee will
join from a private, confidential place with a stable internet
connection, and that the interviewee’s camera will be switched
on. At the outset, the practitioner should confirm that this is the
case and, if necessary, request the interviewee to turn on the
video camera.

Should the interview proceed in person, the practitioner should
ensure that the location is private and, to the extent possible,
out of others’ view and earshot.

13.2.11 Presenting documentary evidence during remote
interviews

During a remote interview, the same considerations with respect
to sharing documents in advance referenced above will generally
apply; it is typically advisable to share documentary evidence
through the videoconferencing platform, rather than to send the
interviewee soft- or hard-copy binders of evidence in advance.
However, it is sometimes challenging to navigate documents on a
screen, particularly where the documents are lengthy or technical
in nature. In those circumstances, providing copies and asking the
witness to review them in advance can avoid significant
unproductive interview time. Should the practitioner need to share
the evidence in advance, security precautions should be undertaken,
such as sending password protected files to the interviewee’s
company email address.

When presenting documentary evidence through a videoconferencing
platform, the practitioner should exercise caution when sharing a
screen to avoid inadvertently projecting the interview outline or
other privileged materials. The practitioner should also remember
to magnify the document, so it is easy for the interviewee to
see.

Depending on personal style, the practitioner may choose to
display the documents or ask the note-taker to do so. Should the
practitioner rely on the note-taker, the note-taker should already
be familiar with the documents to avoid disrupting the
interview.

13.2.12 Interview outlines

Practitioners typically prepare summaries of the lines of
questioning they plan to cover, and the documents they plan to show
the witness. The level of detail required in interview outlines is
case-specific and will also depend on the practitioner’s
knowledge of the case and personal style. The interview outline
should be treated as privileged work-product and not be shared with
the interviewee at any stage. An interview outline is rarely
followed word for word, and the practitioner should be prepared to
deviate in light of the information learned during the interview.
It is frequently helpful to consult the outline towards the end of
an interview to ensure all relevant topics have been covered. Some
practitioners, even if they like to have a lengthy outline, choose
to have as the first page a list of bulleted topics to easily check
that they have all been covered.

13.2.13 Language considerations and translators

Generally speaking, it is best practice to interview witnesses
in their native language. Doing so results in a better and more
fulsome interview and will also guard against later allegations
that they did not understand what they were being asked. Where a
company expects its employees to operate in a certain language, it
is typically reasonable to proceed with the interview in that
language.

If the practitioner does not speak a language in which the
interviewee is professionally fluent, the practitioner should
consider whether to employ a translator or, if it is an option,
seek the assistance of another practitioner fluent in the language.
The benefits of the practitioner well-versed in the case conducting
the interview should be balanced against the inefficiencies created
by employing a translator, namely that the interview may run twice
as long, and that the translation may stop the interview flow and
prevent the practitioner from building a rapport with the
interviewee.

13.2.14 Witnesses the government may interview

There are special considerations when determining whether to
interview a witness whom the government has also expressed interest
in interviewing. For one, the practitioner should decide whether to
inform the government in advance of the interview, as a courtesy,
to alleviate a future government complaint that the company steered
the witness. Doing so may result in co-operation credit (official
or unofficial) for the company. This must be balanced against the
interests of the company in learning what the witness might know
and defending the company. This is a nuanced and fact-specific
decision that should not be taken lightly.

13.3 Conducting the interview

13.3.1 Upjohn warning

At the outset of an interview, the practitioner should give the
interviewee an Upjohn warning making clear that: the
practitioner represents the company, not the interviewee; the
purpose of the interview is to provide legal advice to the company;
the conversation is privileged but the privilege belongs to the
company and the company can choose to waive it and share the
contents of the interview with a third party; and the interviewee
should not discuss the interview with others.⁸ Depending
on circumstances, and to avoid later claims of mistreatment, it may
be advisable to inform the interviewee that the contents of the
interview may be specifically shared with the government.

After providing the Upjohn warning, the practitioner
should confirm that the interviewee understood it and agrees to
proceed. Should the interviewee ask whether he or she needs
counsel, the practitioner should state that he or she cannot advise
in that regard and that the decision rests with the interviewee; it
also may be appropriate to advise the employee that the company
expects the employee to co-operate, and that if counsel is
obtained, counsel must be available promptly and adhere to the
company’s schedule.

Consequences for failing to provide an Upjohn warning
are severe for the practitioner and the company. Conflict issues
may result from the witness’s belief that the lawyer represents
the witness (either in addition to or instead of the company). In
an extreme case, a lawyer may be sanctioned⁹ or
disqualified from representing the company.¹⁰ For its
part, the company could lose a claim that the interview was subject
to the attorney–client privilege, the ramifications of which
could be significant.

The Upjohn warning should generally be provided to both
current and former employees.¹¹

13.3.2 Interview approach

The practitioner’s approach and tone during the interview
will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the
individual’s role in the investigation, the severity of the
issue, the alleged conduct of the interviewee, the documentary
evidence, and the culture of the company in question. Likewise, the
practitioner should be prepared to pivot in his or her approach,
depending on what is revealed during the interview and the rapport
with the interviewee.

13.3.3 Presenting evidence

As a general good practice, the practitioner should only show
the interviewee evidence that the interviewee has seen or has been
able to access in the normal course of the interviewee’s job.
For example, it is frequently preferable to avoid showing the
witness an email on which the witness did not appear. In certain
circumstances, practitioners may, however, decide to show witnesses
documents they have not seen, for example, when it is useful to
have them comment on the communications of another individual or to
show evasive witnesses that they in fact participated in a meeting
or other event.

13.3.4 Concluding the interview

At the conclusion of the interview, the practitioner should ask
the note-taker whether anything needs clarification. Likewise, the
practitioner may ask the interviewee whether he or she would like
to add or clarify based on the topics discussed. It is frequently
helpful to ask for copies of any documents that the witness has
mentioned at this point. It may also be helpful to ask the witness
which other witnesses may have information in connection with the
investigation. Finally, the practitioner should conclude the
interview by reminding the interviewee to keep the conversation
confidential. The practitioner should also provide contact
information for a designated contact person if the interviewee
recalls any additional information or wants to provide any
documentary evidence to aid the investigation.

13.4 Memorialising the findings

13.4.1 Preparing interview memoranda

Verbatim transcripts or recordings of interviews may be
challenged as not subject to the attorney–client privilege or
the attorney work-product doctrine. To protect from waiver of
either, it is best practice to produce interview memoranda,
including counsel’s mental impressions and advice, and to do so
soon after the interview when the interviewer’s and
note-taker’s recollections are fresh.

There are different approaches to preparing interview memoranda.
Some practitioners prefer to prepare the memoranda in chronological
order, taking down questions and answers. While having the
advantage of providing a clear summary, if this record is verbatim
(or close to verbatim), it may make it harder to withstand
privilege challenges. Other practitioners prefer to organise
interview memoranda topically, interweaving the issues raised with
the witness and his or her answers, along with attorney thoughts
and impressions. This makes a memorandum easier to protect and has
the benefit of providing more contemporaneous impressions (for
example, with respect to witness credibility) that may fade and not
be clear from the factual portions of the memorandum.

The interview memoranda should be prepared by the note-taker, in
co-operation with the interviewer, to ensure their accuracy, and
they should include salient details, such as the time, date and
length of the interview; the interview location; the attendees; and
their titles. It should also be clear which documents were shown to
the witness. For the reasons discussed above, a memorandum should
clearly document that the interviewer provided an Upjohn
warning, the contents of that warning and the fact that the
interviewee agreed to proceed with the interview. It should also
clearly assert that the memorandum is protected from disclosure by
the attorney–client privilege and work-product doctrines.

13.4.2 Witness’s requests to review of notes

Witnesses frequently request to review interview notes or
memoranda. A practitioner typically should not provide these to a
witness, as doing so could constitute a waiver of privilege or
work-product; it may also result in unproductive disputes about
what the witness said or intended. The act of approving the final
interview memorandum could turn it into a witness statement, which
may make it harder to avoid a privilege challenge.

13.4.3 Sharing findings with criminal or regulatory
authorities

When considering whether to discuss the content of witness
interviews with the government, practitioners should exercise
particular care. The majority of courts have held that a party
waives privilege by disclosing privileged communications to the
government.¹² By providing an ‘oral download’ of
a witness interview, a practitioner risks waiving privilege over
it,¹³ which, in turn, may lead to knock-on effects,
including having to produce interview memoranda in related private
litigation. If there is a strategic need to provide information to
the government (for example, as part of a co-operation strategy), a
practitioner should be systematic and cautious. Frequently, a
client’s interests are best served by providing information
from an interview to a government agency, but only after a careful
weighing of interests. One potential way of avoiding waiver while
satisfying government co-operation requirements is to provide
summaries of what was learned in interviews without referencing
particular interviewees, for example, by referencing employee
functions (e.g., ‘we learned in our interviews with risk
personnel that . . .’) or by collating information by topic
(e.g., ‘we learned in our interviews that risk personnel often
. . .’).

13.5 Conclusion

Witness interviews often provide a key turning point in an
internal investigation. The impressions and recollections of a
witness will often go beyond the cold record of documents and
emails. Careful preparation and planning will help the practitioner
avoid common mistakes in interviews and maximise the strategic and
fact-finding benefits of the interview.

Footnotes

1. John Nathanson and Katherine Stoller are partners, and
Cáitrín McKiernan is a senior associate, at Shearman
& Sterling LLP.

2. See, e.g., McGrory v. Applied Signal Technology
Inc., 212 Cal. App. 4th 1510, 1528 (2013) (holding
employment-at-will employees may be terminated for refusing to
co-operate with internal investigation). See also Gilman v.
Marsh & McLennan Cos., 826 F.3d 69 (2d Cir.
2016).

3. Employees have no automatic right to counsel during an
internal investigation, unless it is contractually provided for
under the terms of their employment. Union employees, however, may
insist that a union representative attend any investigatory
interview that could lead to the employee’s discipline. See
N.L.R.B. v. J. Weingarten, Inc., 420 U.S. 251,
256–57, 260 (1975).

4. See, e.g., Smith v. Tech. House, Ltd., 11th
Dist. Portage No. 2018-P-0080, 2019-Ohio-2670, 2019 WL 2746868,
¶ 27; see generally SEC v. Rashid, No. 17-CV-8223
(PKC), 2018 WL 6573451, at *1–2 (S.D.N.Y. 13 December 2018)
(discussing common interest privilege).

5. See, e.g., American Bar Association Model Rule of
Prof’l Conduct 4.3 (2022).

6. See, e.g., Peralta v. Cendant Corp., 190
F.R.D. 38, 41–42 (D. Conn. 1999).

7. See, e.g., United States v. Grace, 439
F.Supp.2d 1125, 1138–45 (D. Mont. 2006).

8. See Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383
(1981).

9. See, e.g., United States v. Nicholas, 606
F.Supp.2d 1109, 1121 (N.D.Ca. 2009) rev’d sub nom. United
States v. Ruehle, 583 F.3d 600 (9th Cir. 2009) (declining to
reverse the referral to the state bar for potential disciplinary
action).

10. See, e.g., In re Grand Jury Subpoena: Under
Seal, 415 F.3d 333, (4th Cir. 2005) (failure to administer
Upjohn warnings would have required attorneys to
‘withdraw from all representation’).

11. See, e.g., Hanover Ins. Co., v. Plaquemines
Parish Gov’t, 304 F.R.D. 494, 498–99 (E.D. La. 2015)
(‘[I]t appears that every federal court to address the issue,
with the exception of a single district court decision in 1985, has
held that the privilege extends to former employees in certain
contexts.’); Vegnani v. Medlogix, LLC, No. CV
19-11291-LTS, 2020 WL 5634349, at *2 (D. Mass. Sept. 21, 2020)
(‘Those courts which have addressed whether the privilege
extends to former employees have largely concluded that it does. .
.’); O’Gorman v. Kitchen, No. 20-CV-1404 (LJL),
2021 WL 1292907, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. 7 April 2021) (Upjohn and
subsequent decisions ‘recognize that the attorney-client
privilege extends to interviews conducted by counsel of current and
former employees to gather facts for the purposes of providing
legal advice.’)

12. See, e.g., In re Qwest Comm. Int’l Inc.,
450 F.3d 1179, 1185 (10th Cir. 2006) (‘Any voluntary disclosure
by the client is inconsistent with the attorney-client relationship
and waives the privilege’)(quoting United States v.
Bernard, 877 F.2d 1463, 1465 (10th Cir. 1989)); United
States v. Deloitte LLP, 610 F.3d 129, 140 (D.C. Cir.
2010); Berkley Custom Ins. Managers v. York Risk Servs. Grp.,
Inc., No. 18-CV-9297 (LJL), 2020 WL 5439636, at *4 (S.D.N.Y.
Sept. 10, 2020).

13. See, e.g., United States v. Coburn and
Schwartz, No. 2:19-cr-00120 (D. N.J., Apr. 27, 2022) (Where
outside counsel provided oral ‘downloads’ of privileged
witness interviews from internal investigation to the government,
and the company was ordered to produce all formerly privileged
interview memoranda); SEC v. Herrera, 324 F.R.D. 258, 267
(S.D. Fla. 2017).

Originally Published by GLOBAL INVESTIGATIONS
REVIEW

The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.