Epstein Secrets

as impliedly waived it through his own affirmative conduct. Pitney-Bowes, Inc. v. Mestre, 86 F.R.D. 444 (S.D. Fla. 1980) (emphasis added); see also Stern v. 0 'Quinn, 253 F.R.D. 663 (S.D. Fla. 2008). "Implied waiver of the attorney-client privilege can occur where a party voluntarily injects either a

er way, it does not apply where there is no common interest to be promoted by a joint consultation and the parties meet on a purely adversary basis. Volpe v. Conroy Simberg, 720 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). A mere hope or expectation that the person 12 EFTA00805378 to whom privileged materials a

trine in this case does not "deny the opposing party access to information vital to its defense." Stern, 253 F.R.D. at 676. In that case, plaintiff Stern was suing defendant O'Quinn, and O'Quinn's law firm, for defamation. O'Quinn had instituted an investigation of plaintiff Stern, which was conducted

plaintiff had the right to examine the investigation materials to determine if O'Quinn's reliance upon them was reasonable. Stern also relied upon Volpe v. U.S. Airways, Inc. 184 F.R.D. 672 (M.D. Fla. 1998), where the plaintiff sued defendant U.S. Airways for sexual harassment. U.S. Airways asserted

trine in this case does not "deny the opposing party access to information vital to its defense." Stern, 253 F.R.D. at 676. In that case, plaintiff Stern was suing defendant O'Quinn, and O'Quinn's law firm, for defamation. O'Quinn had instituted an investigation of plaintiff Stern, which was conducted

plaintiff had the right to examine the investigation materials to determine if O'Quinn's reliance upon them was reasonable. Stern also relied upon Volpe v. U.S. Airways, Inc. 184 F.R.D. 672 (M.D. Fla. 1998), where the plaintiff sued defendant U.S. Airways for sexual harassment. U.S. Airways asserted

n be waived — indeed, such protection can be waived "impliedly." A very thorough review of the relevant caselaw is found in this Court's decision in Stern v. O'Quinn, 253 F.R.D. 663, 676-77 (S.D. Fla. 2008). As this Court explained, under the doctrine of implied waiver of work product protection, "a p

.1996); Tribune Co. v. Purcigliotti, 1997 WL 10924, *6 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 10, 1997)). As an illustration of how the doctrine operates, this Court cited Volpe v. U.S. Ainvays, Inc., 184 F.R.D. 672 (M.D.Fla.1998). As this Court explained, in Volpe, the plaintiff sued the defendant, alleging employment disc