Re:Google hid evidence by training workers to avoid words mo...
by lazide on Friday September 15, 2023 @10:46PM
(#37531560)
That is a rather special edge case - it was specifically directed training that she specifically requested on specific legal issues directly applicable to her job, directly communicated to her by an attorney, clearly marked as confidential, and was nearly purely legal advice directly applicable to her job.
It wasn’t a class given widely, it wasn’t broad or generic, it wasn’t given unsolicited, etc.
Point taken though, and thanks for the cite!
Re:Google hid evidence by training workers to avoid words mo...
by abduhl on Saturday September 16, 2023 @04:15AM
(#37532966)
No. It was training given to the HR department. Thorman received generic training regarding how to classify exempt employees from an attorney. Thorman did not request the training personally.
It was a training given widely, and online. It was arguably broad and generic. It was given unsolicited (unless you count every training an employee is told to do as unsolicited).
The fact that you misunderstand the entire factual and procedural posture of this opinion should key you in to how out of your depth you are. Every discovery fight is a special edge case, that’s why I said corporate privilege is hard in theory and even harder in practice.
“[T]raining materials prepared by in-house counsel to advise employees on the law applicable to their jobs are entitled to [attorney-client] protection because they provide legal advice.”
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/rhode-i...