Disclosures in State Proceedings

A federal court that must decide whether a disclosure made in a state proceeding cost the holder its privilege or work-product protection turns to Federal Rule of Evidence 502(c). When the disclosure is made in a state proceeding and is not the subject of a state-court order concerning waiver, it does not operate as a waiver in a federal proceeding if it satisfies either of two conditions.¹ The first is that the disclosure would not be a waiver under Rule 502 had it been made in a federal proceeding.² The second is that it is not a waiver under the law of the state where the disclosure occurred.³ Everything turns on the word or. The holder needs only one regime to protect the disclosure, so admissibility in the later federal proceeding follows the law that is most protective against waiver.⁴

Rule 502(a) and (b) govern disclosures made in a federal proceeding or to a federal office or agency, so a holder whose disclosure occurred in a state courtroom or in state-court discovery falls outside both. Rule 502(c) closes that gap. It tells the federal court, deciding a later dispute, how to treat the earlier state-proceeding disclosure; what the state court does with the disclosure inside its own case is left to that court. The rule protects work product as well as privilege, so a lawyer's litigation memorandum produced in state discovery is tested the same way as a privileged email. Work-product protection is the protection that applicable law provides for tangible material, or its intangible equivalent, prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial.⁵

The either-regime structure makes sense from the disclosing party's side. A holder who produces material in state court acts under that forum's rules and cannot know whether the same material will surface in a federal case years later. If the federal court judged the earlier disclosure only by the federal standard, a holder who had done everything the state court required could still lose protection. If it judged the disclosure only by state law, a holder who had met the federal standard could lose protection because the state forum happened to be stricter. Either rule would turn the place of the first lawsuit into a trap. Applying whichever regime protects more removes the trap, because the holder is no worse off for having disclosed in a state proceeding.

Hypothetical Illustration

A manufacturer sued in state court produces counsel's litigation memorandum by mistake after a lawyer-supervised screening process, and it demands the memorandum's return the day the error is found. The state court enters no order about waiver, and that state's courts treat any production of a privileged document as a waiver. A plaintiff in a later federal suit demands the memorandum. The state-law condition fails, but the federal condition holds: a mistaken production, reasonable precautions, and prompt rectification would have preserved protection under Rule 502(b) in a federal proceeding, so no waiver operates in the federal case.

Now take a retailer in a different dispute. It produces a similar memorandum in state court with no screening at all and waits months before objecting, which would defeat protection under Rule 502(b). Its state, however, holds that an inadvertent production never waives protection. This time the federal condition fails and the state-law condition holds, so the later federal court again finds no waiver. Only a holder whose disclosure would have been a waiver under both regimes loses protection.

The two scenes mirror each other, and the mirror shows that each condition is a separate path to the same result. A holder who fails one should check the other before conceding waiver. Exam stems tempt you to drop a branch in one of two ways: apply only the federal elements because the dispute is now in federal court, or apply only the law of the state because the disclosure happened there. Rule 502(c) requires both inquiries and stops at the first one that protects the holder.

The rule also has a threshold exclusion. Rule 502(c) applies only when the disclosure is not the subject of a state-court order concerning waiver.⁶ Where such an order exists, the court that supervised the exchange has already decided what the disclosure means for protection, and a two-condition test imposed later by a federal court would second-guess the judge who oversaw the production.

Rule 502(f) completes the picture. It provides that, notwithstanding Rules 101 and 1101, the rule applies to state proceedings and to federal court-annexed and federal court-mandated arbitration proceedings, in the circumstances set out in the rule, and that, notwithstanding Rule 501, it applies even if state law provides the rule of decision.⁷ The override of Rule 501 matters here because a federal case in which state law supplies the rule of decision, such as a diversity suit, would otherwise look to state privilege law alone. Instead, the federal court applies the two-regime test of Rule 502(c). The two provisions face opposite directions: Rule 502(c) looks back from a federal court at a disclosure made in a state proceeding, while Rule 502(f) carries the federal rule into state proceedings and into cases governed by state law.

Exam Analysis Steps

Because the rule asks where the disclosure happened before it asks anything else, a problem is best run in a fixed order that stops at the first protective answer.

Identify where the disclosure was made, and use Rule 502(c) only if it occurred in a state proceeding, since disclosures in federal proceedings or to federal offices and agencies fall under Rule 502(a) and (b).
Ask whether a state court entered an order concerning waiver for that disclosure, and if it did, treat the order as controlling and set Rule 502(c) aside.
If there is no such order, ask whether the disclosure would have been a waiver under Rule 502 had it been made in a federal proceeding.
Ask separately whether the disclosure was a waiver under the law of the state where it occurred.
Conclude that no waiver operates in the federal proceeding if either inquiry answers no, so that waiver follows only when both regimes find one.

Step three imports the rest of this chapter, including the conditions for extending a waiver to undisclosed material and the three requirements for excusing a mistaken production, so Rule 502(c) depends on those rules and does not replace them. Its own contribution is the choice of regime: the more protective of the two governs later federal use.

Disclosures in State Proceedings

Endnotes8