Evidentiary privileges in international arbitration

International and Comparative Law Quarterly

Volumn 50, Issue 2, 2001, Pages 345-385

  Mosk, Richard M ^a   Ginsburg, Tom ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85006650290     PISSN: 00205893     EISSN: 14716895     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/iclq/50.2.345     Document Type: Article

References (394)

1. C. F. Dugan, “Foreign Privileges in U.S. Litigation” (1996) 5 J. Int'l L. & Prac. 33, 34.
2. O. Bodington, The French Law of Evidence (1904).
3. K. Reichenberg, “The Recognition of Foreign Privileges in United States Discovery Proceedings” (1988) 9 Nw. J. Int'l L. & Bus. 80, 109 n.161.
4. See e.g. Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947).
5. “Developments in the Law: Privileged Communications” (1985) 98 Harv. L. Rev. 1472, 1455 (“Developments”).
6. W. S. Holdsworth, 5 A History of English Law (1924), p.333 (citing cases from 1576–79).
7. “Developments” A History of English Law, at p.1456.
8. G. L. Peiris, “Privilege and Confidentiality in Commonwealth Law” (1985) 18 Comp. & Int'l L.J. of Southern Africa 320, 328.
9. E. D. Green and C. R. Nesson (eds.), Federal Rules Of Evidence (1988), p.73.
10. See e.g. California Evidence Code §§952–1070.
11. M. Damaska, Evidence Law Adrift (1997), p.12.
12. See infra sec. II B.1.
13. For example in Germany. Dirk-Reiner Martens, “Germany” in C. Platto (ed.), Obtaining Evidence in Another Jurisdiction in Business Disputes (2nd edn 1993)
14. Reichenberg, Obtaining Evidence in Another Jurisdiction in Business Disputes, at p.88 n.37.
15. J. Merryman, The Civil Law Tradition 2nd edn. (1985), p.130.
16. M. Damaska, The Faces of Justice and State Authority (1986), p.209 n.55 (quoting Code of Civil Proc. of the Swiss Canton of Zurich §159).
17. Idem at p.210.
18. See e.g. R. Cross and C. Tapper, Cross on Evidence (7th edn, 1990), p.201.
19. See e.g. UNCITRAL Model Law, Art.27 (“The arbitral tribunal or a party with the approval of the arbitral tribunal may request from a competent court of this State assistance in taking evidence. The court may execute the request within its competence and according to its rules on taking evidence.”)
20. English Arbitration Act 1996 §43(1) (a party “may use the same court procedures as are available in relation to legal proceedings to secure the attendance before the tribunal of a witness in order to give oral testimony or to produce documents or other material evidence”)
21. Swiss Law on Private International Law, Art.184 (tribunal can request judicial assistance when necessary)
22. German Civil Procedure Code §1036(1) (arbitrators must seek judicial assistance for discovery) and §1036(2) (court is competent to decide in event of a refusal to testify)
23. cf. 9 U.S.C. §7 (1994) (arbitrators may subpoena persons and documents even from non-parties)
24. Amgen Inc. v. Kidney Center of Delaware County, Ltd., 879 F. Supp. 878 (N.D. III. 1995) (arbitrators' discovery power extends to those outside jurisdiction of the court)
25. In re Technostroyexport, 853 F. Supp. 695, 698 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) (discussing Russian and Swedish law).
26. A. Redfern and M. Hunter, Law and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration (3rd edn, 1999), pp.317–318.
27. Code Pénal, Arts. 226–13 and 226–14 (formerly Art. 378). The privilege has even been found to extend to telephone operators.
28. Cass. 15 Mar. 1948, Pas 1948 p.169
29. cited in F. J. Hampson, “The International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia and the Reluctant Witness” (1998) 47 I.C.L.Q. 50, 60 n.35.
30. See e.g. German Code of Civil Procedure §383
31. Belgian Code Judiciaire Art.929
32. Netherlands Code of Crim. Proc. Art.191 para.4
33. Civil Procedure Code of Brazil, Art.406
34. Japanese Code of Civil Procedure Arts. 280–281
35. German Penal Code Art.300
36. Italian Penal Code Art.622
37. Decree 32,171 (29 July 1942) Art.7 (Portugal)
38. Swiss Penal Code Art.321
39. F. Dessemonte and T. Ansay (eds.), Introduction to Swiss Law (1995), p.274
40. J. Ofori Boateng, “Privileges under the Evidence Decree: Non-professional and Professional Communications” (1982) 16 U. Ghana L.J. 25.
41. See also P. Eijsvoogel (ed.), Evidence Before International Arbitral Tribunals (1994), pp.85, 271 (Belgium, Tunisia).
42. Among common law countries, the Canadian Law Reform Commission recommended such a general privilege. Report on Evidence by the Law Reform Commission of Canada §41 (1975).
43. C. Platto (ed.), Obtaining Evidence in Another Jurisdiction in Business Disputes (1st edn 1988), p.113.
44. D. Sandifer, Evidence Before International Tribunals (1975) at p.377 (citing the drafting committee's report as saying “in its own courts every government must claim to exercise occasionally the right to refuse to produce a document on the ground of public interest and of that interest it claims to be the sole judge”).
45. G. Hazard et al., “Transnational Rules of Civil Procedure: Rules and Commentary” (1997) 30 Cornell Int'l L.J. 493.
46. Idem. Rule 20 enumerates the attorney-client, work-product, husband-wife, priest-penitent, and doctor-patient privileges. The doctor-patient privilege explicitly incorporates a psychotherapist-patient privilege.
47. M. Radin, “The Privilege of Confidential Communication Between Lawyer and Client” (1928) 16 Cal. L. Rev. 487, 488.
48. “Developments” Cal. L. Rev. n.6, at p.1501
49. See e.g. Rio Tinto Zinc Corp. v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. [1978] 1 All E.R. 434 (United Kingdom)
50. Codice Penale, Art.622 (Italy) (cited in D. R. Mastromarco, “Disparity in the Application of Legal Principles as a Form of Trade Restraint: Attorney-Client Privilege in the European Community” (1990) 13 Hastings Int'l Comp. L. Rev. 479, 490 n.50)
51. Evidence Act of Nigeria (1945) §169, 172
52. D. Field and F. Raitt, The Law of Evidence in Scotland (1996) pp.262–265
53. C. Fennell, The Law of Evidence in Ireland (1992), pp.166–179
54. Ho Hock Lai, “History and Judicial Theories of Legal Professional Privilege” (1995) Sing. J. Legal Stud. 558 (Singapore)
55. A. Paizes, “Towards a Broader Balancing of Interests: Exploring the Theoretical Foundations of the Legal Professional Privilege” (1989) 106 S. Afr. LJ. 109 (South Africa).
56. ICTY Rules of Evidence, Rule 97 (“All communications between lawyer and client shall be regarded as privileged, and consequently not subject to disclosure at trial, unless: (i) the client consents to disclosure; or (ii) the client has voluntarily disclosed the content of the communication to a third party, and that third party then gives evidence of that disclosure”).
57. Decision on Prosecution Motion for Production of Defence Witness Statements, Prosecutor v. Duško Tadic, Case No. IT-94–1-T, Trial Chamber II, 27 Nov. 1996
58. reprinted in G. K. McDonald and O. Swaak-Goldman (eds.), Substantive and Procedural Aspects of International Criminal Law: The Experience of International and National Courts (2000), Vol. II, p.966.
59. See also Rule 14 of proposed rules of evidence for the International Criminal Court as quoted in M. Rasmussen, “Rules of Evidence for the International Criminal Court” (1995) 64 Nordic J. Int'l L. 275, 281
60. R. Wedgwood, “International Criminal Tribunals and State Sources of Proof: The Case of Tihomir Blaškic” (1998) 11 Leiden J. Int'l L. 635, 635–36 (describing difficulty of constructing a system of evidence before international criminal tribunals).
61. Cross and Tapper, Leiden J. Int'l L., at p.440.
62. For example, when filing the action is seen to constitute a waiver. Byers v. Burleson, 100 F.R.D. 436 (D.D.C. 1983).
63. See also B. Witkin, California Evidence (3d edn, 1986), p.1107.
64. Cross and Tapper, California Evidence, at pp.441–442
65. United States v. United Shoe Machine Corp., 89 F. Supp. 357, 358–59 (D. Mass. 1950).
66. Swidler and Berlin v. United States, 524 U.S. 399 (1998).
67. In the United States, courts have come to different conclusions as to whether inadvertent disclosure constitutes a waiver. Compare In re Sealed Case, 877 F. 2d 976 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (privilege waived by inadvertent disclosure)
68. with Aramony v. United Way of America, 969 F. Supp. 226, 235 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (privilege not waived).
69. See generally A. M. Hill, “A Problem of Privilege: In-house Counsel and the Attorney-Client Privilege in the United States and the European Community” (1995) 27 Case W. Res. J. Int'l L. 145.
70. This decision provoked controversy insofar as it excluded in-house counsel and non-European Union lawyers. See P. H. Burkard, “Attorney-Client Privilege in the EEC: the Perspective of Multinational Corporate Counsel” (1986) 20 Int'l Lawyer 677, 684.
71. D. R. Mastromarco, Int'l Lawyer
72. see also John Deere v. EEC Commission, 28 O.J. Eur. Comm. (No. L 35) 58, 59 (1985) (relying on in-house counsel's advice to support finding of antitrust violation).
73. In most jurisdictions in the United States, legal advice by in-house counsel is included by the privilege, but any communications involving only business responsibilities are not included. See A. Stevens, “An Analysis of the Troubling Issues Surrounding In-house Counsel and the Attorney-Client Privilege” (1998) 23 Hamline L. Rev. 289
74. Upjohn v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (1981)
75. J. Rogers, “Corporate Counsel–Attorney-Client Privilege” 16 ABA/BNA Manual on Professional Conduct 335 (5 July, 2000).
76. D. W. Shuman, “The Origins of the Physician-Patient Privilege and Professional Secret” (1985) 39 Sw. LJ. 661, 679–80.
77. See Sw. LJ. n.22.
78. New Zealand Evidence Act 1908 §81
79. Israel Evidence Ordinance, §49
80. Victoria Evidence Act (Australia) 1958 §28
81. Bernfeld, “Medical Secrecy” (1972) 3 Cambrian L. Rev. 11, 14
82. cited in Shuman, Cambrian L. Rev., at n.85.
83. As of 1999, all states but South Carolina and West Virginia had some form of the privilege. A federal case declining to recognise the privilege is Gilbreath v. Guadalupe Hospital Foundation, Inc. 5 F. 3d 785 (5th Cir. 1993)
84. See also American Arbitration Association, American Bar Association, American Medical Association, Commission on Health Care Dispute Resolution, Draft Final Report, 27 July 1998, 598 PLI/Lit 551 (WESTLAW) (stating arbitrators should carefully consider claims of privilege and confidentiality in addressing evidentiary issues).
85. Rex v. Duchess of Kingston, 20 How. St. Tr. 355 (1776).
86. Cross and Tapper, How. St. Tr.
87. see also Law Reform Committee (London) Privilege in Civil Proceedings 20–22 (1967).
88. The very limited British privilege does not extend to arbitral practice. International Chamber of Commerce, The Taking of Evidence in International Arbitral Practice (1989), pp.63–64. The limited privilege was presumably enough for the European Court in the Miss M case to find that privilege formed a principle common to all Member States.
89. See e.g. People v. Aercega, 32 Cal. 3d 504, 523, 651 P. 2d 338 (1982) (criminal proceedings)
90. Conn. Gen. Stat. §52–146f (1983)
91. Tex. R. Evid. 510(d)(5).
92. See ALI Res't Evidence R. 211
93. Uniform Rules r. 27.
94. See S.A. Silver, “Beyond Jaffee v. Redmond: Should the Federal Courts Recognize a Right to Physician-Patient Confidentiality?” (1998) Ohio State Law Journal 1809, 1855 nn. 216–218
95. Shuman, A.L.R., at pp.683–684.
96. See also Article 10 of Additional Protocol II, applicable in non-international conflicts.
97. For a discussion, see T. D. Ragsdale, “The Constitutional Right to Privacy and the Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege as Limitations on the National Transportation Safety Board's Right to Investigate Air Traffic Accidents” (1991) 57 J. Air L. and Com. 469, 480–496.
98. Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 116 S. Ct. 1923 (1996) at n.11.
99. See e.g. In re Doe, 711 F.2d 1187 (2d Cir. 1983)
100. United States v. Meagher, 531 F.2d 752 (5th Cir.)
101. cert. denied, 429 U.S. 853 (1976)
102. United States v. Colletta, 602 F.Supp. 1322, 1327 (E.D.Pa.) (“[t]here is no general federal common-law physician-patient privilege”)
103. aff'd mem., 770 F.2d 1076 (3d Cir.1985).
104. Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 116 S. Ct. 1923 (1996).
105. The “reason and experience” language of Rule 501 comes from Wolfle v. United States, 291 U.S. 7, 12 (1934) “which in turn referred to the oft-repeated observation that ‘the common law is not immutable but flexible, and by its own principles adapts itself to varying conditions.”’
106. Jaffee, 116 S. Ct. at 1927
107. (quoting Funk v. United States, 290 U.S. 371, 383 (1933)).
108. See e.g. Cal Evid. Code §1016–1027 (1995).
109. See B. J. Wadsworth, “Case Note: Jaffee v. Richmond” (1997) 32 Land & Water L. Rev. 873, 880–881
110. Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, 17 Cal. 3d 425, 551 P. 2d 334 (Cal. 1976)
111. but see Boynton v. Burglass 590 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 1991).
112. Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 116 S. Ct. 1923 (1996) at n.19.
113. See Further Order on Motion for Access to Non-public Materials in the Lasva Valley, 16 Feb. 1999.
114. D. R. Khuluse, “Journalistic Privilege” (1993) 9 S. Afr. J. on Hum. Rts. 279.
115. See e.g. California Evidence Code §970 (immunity for refusing to disclose “any unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering, reviewing or processing information for communication to the public”).
116. H.M.A. v. Airs, [1975] S.L.T. 177.
117. Re Kevin O'Kelly (1974) 108 I.L.T.R. 97.
118. Attorney-General v. Mulholland [1963] 2 Q.B. 477.
119. Contempt of Court Act 1981 Sec. 10 (England) (“No court may require a person to disclose, nor is any person guilty of contempt of court for refusing to disclose, the source of information contained in a publication for which he is responsible, unless it be established to the satisfaction of the court that disclosure is necessary in the interests of justice or national security or for the prevention of disorder or crime”).
120. Attorney-General v. Clough [1963] 1 Q.B. 773
121. Attorney-General v. Mulholland, [1963] 2 Q.B. 477.
122. Reporters Privilege, 580 Practicing Law Institute/Pat 27, 37 (1999) (31 states and District of Columbia have shield laws allowing journalists to protect their sources).
123. Baker v. F and F Inv. 470 F. 2d 778 (2nd Cir. 1972).
124. Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972) (no constitutional right to refuse to disclose confidential information in a criminal grand jury proceeding).
125. Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153 (1979).
126. Reporters Privilege, U.S.
127. Goodwin v. United Kingdom (1996) 22 E.H.R.R. 123.
128. C. A. Wright and K. W. Graham, Jr., Federal Practice and Procedures, §5427 (state statutes and cases).
129. See e.g. Couch v. United States, 409 U.S. 322, 335 (1973) (rejecting privilege claim).
130. Internal Revenue Code §7525.
131. Martin and Co. v. Martin [1953] 2 Q.B. 286.
132. See e.g. Sec. 104, Patent Act of 1977 (U.K.)
133. Cal. Evidence Code §1035.8.
134. Hampson, Cal. Evidence Code. The ICTY has found that the International Committee of the Red Cross has a right, under the Geneva Conventions and customary international law, to non-disclosure of certain information related to its work.
135. “Decision Denying Request for Assistance in Securing Documents and Witnesses from the International Committee of the Red Cross”, Trial Chamber III, 7 June 2000.
136. R. Kryschuk and Zulprik, (1958) 14 D.L.R. 676 (2d.) (P.M. Ct. of Sask.).
137. G. v. G. (1964) 1OR 361 (AC of Ont.).
138. People v. Carter, 34 Cal. App 3d 748, 751, 110 Cal. Rpts 324 (1973).
139. University of Pennsylvania v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 493 U.S. 182 (1990)
140. see also C. J. Stevens, “Note: Preventing Unnecessary Intrusions on University Autonomy: A Proposed Academic Freedom Privilege” (1990) 69 Cal. L. Rev. 1538.
141. Holdsworth, Cal. L. Rev., at p.333.
142. M. Cherif Bassiouni, “Human Rights in the Context of Criminal Justice: Identifying International Procedural Protections and Equivalent Protections in National Constitutions” (1993) 3 Duke J. Comp. & Int'l L. 235, 265 n.138 (listing 48 countries that have constitutionally codified right against self-incrimination).
143. This right is also recognised in Germany, the Netherlands, France, England, Israel, and Norway. See also J. K. Walker, “A Comparative Discussion of the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination” (1993) 14 N.Y.L. Sch. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 1
144. G. Stessens, “The Obligation to Produce Documents Versus the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination: Human Rights Protection Extended Too Far?” (1997) 22 Eur. L. Rev. 45
145. B. J. Zupancic, “The Crown and the Criminal: the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination Towards General Principles of Criminal Procedure” (1997) 9 Rev. Euro. Dr. Pub. 11.
146. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, opened for signature 19 Dec. 1966, art. 14(3)(g), S. Treaty Doc. No. 95–2, at 28, 999 U.N.T.S. 171, 177 (entered into force 23 Mar. 1976 [hereinafter ICCPR] (“In the determination of any criminal charge against him, everyone shall be entitled to the following minimum guarantees … not to be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt”).
147. Article 67(1)(g) of the Rome Statute on the International Criminal Court (ICC).
148. “No person … shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself ….” U.S. Const, Amend. V. The privilege against self-incrimination is the subject of much scholarly commentary. See e.g. E. Griswold, The Fifih Amendment Today (1955).
149. For a useful article on the application of the privilege with regard to foreign privileges, see D. M. Amann, “A Whipsaw Cuts Both Ways: The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination in an International Context” (1998) 45 UCLA L. Rev. 1201.
150. See B. L. Ingraham, The Structure of Criminal Procedure: Laws and Practice of France, the Soviet Union, China, and the United States (1987), pp.62, 79
151. see generally M. Pieck, “The Accused's Privilege Against Self-Incrimination in the Civil Law” (1962) 11 Am. J. Comp. L. 585.
152. See e.g. New Zealand Apple and Pear Marketing Board v. Master & Sons Ltd., [1986] 1 N.Z.L.R. 191, 196 (stating that “ [t]here seems no policy reason why a corporation should not avail itself of the rule” granting right against self-incrimination)
153. Triplex Safety Glass Co. Ltd. v. Lancegaye Safety Glass Ltd., [1939] 2 K.B. 395, 409 (Ct. App.) (asserting that court could “see no ground for depriving a juristic person of those safeguards which the law of England accords even the least deserving of natural person”).
154. Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 69–70 (1906) (denying corporations the right to privilege against self-incrimination)
155. see Caltex, 118 A.L.R. at 405 (“[T]he modern and international treatment of the privilege as a human right which protects personal freedom, privacy and human dignity is a less than convincing argument for holding that corporations should enjoy the privilege”).
156. See discussion in D. Yoshida, “The Applicability of the Attorney-Client Privilege to Communication with Foreign Legal Professionals” (1997) 66 Fordham L. Rev. 209.
157. Rogers v. United States, 340 U.S. 367 (1951)
158. subsequent cases discussed in “Note: Testimonial Waiver of the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination” (1979) 92 Harvard Law Review 1752.
159. See e.g. T. Ansay and D. Wallace, Jr. (eds.), Introduction to Turkish Law (3d edn, 1987), p.233.
160. See e.g. California Evidence Code §970
161. J. Weinstein, Evidence Manual 18–47 (1999)
162. B. Witkin, California Evidence, 1116–1118 (1986).
163. J. W. Strong et al., McCormick on Evidence (4th edn, 1992) §98, at p.112.
164. See e.g. Introduction to Swiss Law, McCormick on Evidence, at p.274 (Switzerland)
165. Introduction to Dutch Law for Foreign Lawyers (2d ed. 1993) 209 quoting Art.191 para.1
166. Wetboek van Burgerlijke Rechtsvording (Netherlands)
167. see also Wetboek Strafvoerding Art.217.
168. In Italy, family were treated as incompetent witnesses, a position subsequently reversed by the Constitutional Court. C. Certuma, The Italian Legal System (1985), p.205.
169. Family testimony cannot be compelled however, so it remains a waivable privilege in Italian law. Idem.
170. Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40 (1980).
171. See e.g. In re Erato, 2 F.3d 11 (2d Cir. 1993) (refusing to apply Dutch parent-child privilege in the United States)
172. D. J. Harris and M. O'Boyle, Law of the European Convention on Human Rights (1995) (family testimony privilege not a violation of accused's right to call and hear witness on his behalf).
173. See “Family Matters: Congress to Consider a Parent-Child Legal Privilege” (Jan. 1999) Cal. Lawyer 21.
174. The foundational cases in family privacy are Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923)
175. Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925)
176. see D. Meyer, “The Paradox of Family Privacy” (2000) 53 Vand. L. Rev. 527, 533.
177. See In re Grand Jury, 103 F.3d 1140 (1997).
178. Shuman, F.3d, at p.668; Code of Canon Law of the Catholic Church 1983 c. 983 §§1–2 (“The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is a crime for a confessor in any way to betray a penitent by word or in any other manner or for any reason”).
179. Shuman, F.3d, at p.680.
180. M. J. Mazza, “Should Clergy Hold the Priest-Penitent Privilege?” (1998) 82 Marq. L. Rev. 171, 173 n.27.
181. See Bodington, Marq. L. Rev., at p.100
182. Quebec C. Civ. Proc. Act, SQ 1965 Vol. 2 §308.
183. Cook v. Carroll [1945] IR 515
184. see Fennell IR, at pp. 183–186.
185. Mockaitis v. Harcleroad, 104 F. 3d 1522, 1532 (9th. Cir. 1997)
186. In re Grand Jury Investigation, 918 F. 2d 374, 384 (3d Cir. 1990).
187. See e.g. Wis. Stat §905.06(1)(a).
188. In re Murtha, 279 A. 2d 889 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1971)
189. but see Eckmann v. Board of Education, 106 F.R.D. 70 (E.D. Mo. 1985) (Federal court coming to opposite conclusion).
190. Mazza, F.R.D., at p.185.
191. See discussion in Mazza, F.R.D., at pp.187–192. United States statutes also vary on who holds the privilege: the penitent alone, or both the penitent and the member of the clergy.
192. Zivilprozessordnung §384(3).
193. T. S. Durst and C. L. Mann, “Behind Closed Doors: Closing the Courtroom in Trade Secrets Cases” (2000) 8 Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J. 355. See WIPO Arbitration Rules Art.52 and ICC Arbitration Rules Art.20(7) (allowing panels to issue protective orders to protect confidential information).
194. Reichenberg, Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J., at p.93.
195. C. S. Baldwin, “Protecting Confidential and Proprietary Information in International Arbitration” (1996) 31 Tex. Int'l L.J. 451, 462–465.
196. Bredice v. Doctor's Hospital, 50 F.R.D. 249 (D.D.C. 1970).
197. See D. Motzenbecker, “Two Courts Refuse to Protect Self-Critical Analysis: Can the Privilege Find Solid Ground?” (March 2000) Litigation News, at 3
198. M. Clark, “The Privilege for Self-Critical Analysis” (1999) 42 Res Gest. 287
199. J. Kesan and B. Mishra, “Do We Need the Corporate Self-Evaluative Privilege?” (unpublished draft on file with authors).
200. See e.g. Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 408 (evidence of offers of compromise not admissible to prove liability, invalidity of claim, or damages).
201. See discussion in R. Clifford Potter, “Settlement of Claims and Litigation: Legal Rules, Negotiation Strategies, and In-house Guidelines” (Feb. 1986) 41 Business Lawyer 515.
202. California Evidence Code §1119
203. Folb v. Motion Picture Industry Pension and Health Plans, 16 F. Supp. 2d 1164 (CD. Cal. 1998).
204. Cross and Tapper, F. Supp., at p.452.
205. See e.g. U.K. Official Secrets Act 1989
206. Canada Evidence Act §36.1
207. Nigeria Evidence Act 1945 §166 (preventing disclosure of any unpublished official records except with permission of department head).
208. See e.g. Totten v. U.S., 92 U.S. 105 (1875)
209. Duncan v. Cammell Laird & Co. [1942] A.C. 624
210. Ellis v. Home Office [1953] 2 Q.B. 135
211. see also 8 Wigmore on Evidence, pp.792–807, §2378.
212. Fed. R. Ev. 501.
213. See e.g. U.S. v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1 (1945)
214. Totten v. U.S., U.S.
215. Clift v. U.S., 808 F. Supp. 101 (D.Conn., 1991) (state secrets privilege bars discovery of government information on encoding devices in a civil action; when government makes showing of reasonable danger to security, no need to inspect documents, even in camera).
216. Weinstein, F. Supp. at 18–56.
217. U.S. v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. at 7–8.
218. See e.g. California Evidence Code 915 (h).
219. U.S. v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. at 10.
220. See e.g. Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653 (N.D. Cal. 1997).
221. See Classified Information Procedures Act, 18 U.S.C.app §6.
222. See also D. Martella, “Defending the Land of the Free and the Home of the Fearful: the Classified Information Procedures Act” (1992) 7 Am. U. J. Int'l L. & Pol'y 851
223. J. Jarvis, “Protecting the Nation's National Security: the Classified Information Procedures Act” (1995) 20 Thurgood Marshall L. Rev 319.
224. See U.S. v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974)
225. see also M. J. Rosell, Executive Privilege: The Dilemma of Secrecy and Accountability (1994).
226. Capital Info. Group v. Alaska, 923 P.2d 29, 33–34 (Alaska 1996)
227. Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Ct., 53 Cal. 3d 1325
228. City of Colorado Springs v. White, 967 P.2d 1041 (Col. 1998)
229. Hamilton v. Verdow, 287 Md. 544, 414 A.2d 914, 924 (Md. 1980)
230. Ostoin v. Waterford Township Police Dep't, 189 Mich. App. 334, 471 N.W.2d 666, 668 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991)
231. Nero v. Hyland, 76 N.J. 213, 386 A.2d 846, 853 (N.J. 1978)
232. State ex rel. Attorney Gen. v. First Judicial Dist. Court, 96 N.M. 254, 629 P.2d 330, 333–334 (N.M. 1981)
233. Dorchester Master Ltd. Partnership v. Cabot Pipeline Corp., 137 Misc.2d 442, 521 N.Y.S.2d 209, 210–211 (N.Y.Sup.Ct. 1987)
234. Killington, Ltd. v. Lash, 153 Vt. 628, 572 A.2d 1368, 1373–1374 (Vt. 1990).
235. But see Rubin v. City of Los Angeles, 190 Cal App. 3d 560, 235 Cal. Rptr. 516 (1987) (trial court could not create nonstatutory, local state secrets privilege that functioned as special defence barring organisation's suit, and organisation's motion to compel responses to its interrogatories was improperly denied based on that privilege).
236. See Burmah Oil Co. v. Bank of England [1979] 1 W.L.R. 772.
237. Code Civ. Proc. Art.271
238. see Ansay and Wallace, Code Civ. Proc. Art., at p.233.
239. Act No. 801 (24 Oct. 1977)
240. Arts. 202–204 Code. Crim. Proc.
241. S. Coliver et al. (eds.), Secrecy and Liberty: National Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information (1999).
242. See 552 U.S.C. 552 (b)(1) (matters “specifically authorized to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy” exempt from disclosure).
243. See e.g. U.K Official Secrets Act 1989 §1 (national security exception); Act of 17 July 1978 (France) (right to information subject to enumerated exceptions including national security)
244. New Zealand Official Information Act 1982 (including national security exception).
245. European Convention on Human Rights Art.10(2) (right to information may be restricted in the interests of national security)
246. as applied in Leander v. Sweden, 116 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) 1987 (national security exception applied when plaintiff sought access to Swedish government information denying him a security clearance).
247. See e.g. European Convention of Obtaining Abroad of Information and Evidence in Administrative Matters, Art.7(b) noting that a State can refuse to comply with a request for information if “compliance with the request might interfere with sovereignty, security, public policy, or other essential interests”. Article 72 of the Rome Statute on the International Criminal Court (ICC) is specifically addressed to the protection of national security information.
248. O. Q. Swaak-Goldman, “Who Defines Members' Security Interest in the WTO?” (1996) 9 Leiden J. Int'l L. 361, 364 (exception has proven “relatively uncontroversial”)
249. H. L. Schloemann and S. Ohlhoff, “‘Constitutionalization’ and Dispute Settlement in the WTO: National Security as an Issue of Competence” (1999) 93 A.J.I.L. 424, 426 (1999).
250. Sandifer, A.J.I.L., at p.380.
251. Idem.
252. (1949) ICJ Reports, 32.
253. See A. A. Mawdsley, “Evidence Before the International Court of Justice”, in R. St. John MacDonald (ed.), Essays in Honour of Wang Tieya (1994), pp.533, 540.
254. But see Sandifer, Essays in Honour of Wang Tieya, at p.379 (arguing that the refusal was based not on the confidential character of the documents, but on their inaccessibility to certain parties in the proceedings).
255. See Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Decision on the Objections of the Republic of Croatia to the Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum, Case No. IT-95–14-PT, Tr. Ch. II, 18 July 1997
256. reversed in part and affirmed in part, Judgment on the Request of the Republic of Croatia for Review of the Decision of the Trial Chamber II of 18 July 1997, Case. No. IT-95–14-AR108 bis, A. Ch., 2 Oct. 1997, available at www.un.org/icty (hereafter Blaskic).
257. Idem.
258. Para. 69 Blaskic trial decision.
259. Tribunal Rules Art.54 bis.
260. Para. 68 of Blaskic Appeals Decision.
261. See C. F. Amerasinghe, “Problems of Evidence Before International Administrative Tribunals”, in R. Lillich (ed.), Fact-Finding Before International Tribunals (1992), pp.205, 219.
262. See discussion in Rubino-Sammartano, Fact-Finding Before International Tribunals, at p.368.
263. See e.g. H. Smit, “The Role of the Arbitral Tribunal in Civil and Common Law Systems with Respect to the Presentation of Evidence”, in A. J. van den Berg (ed.), Planning Efficient Arbitration Proceedings, ICCA Congress Series No. 7, (1996), p.168.
264. P. Eijsvoogel, Planning Efficient Arbitration Proceedings, ICCA Congress Series No. 7, at p.5.
265. Idem.
266. See n.23 Idem.
267. See e.g. Republic Gear v. Borg-Warner Corp., 381 F. 2d 551, 555–556 (2d Cir. 1967).
268. Fed. R. Evid. 501.
269. See text in n.11 Fed. R. Evid.
270. Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Criminal Matters (18 Mar. 1970), Art.11. Article 12 of the Inter-American Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad has a similar provision.
271. The Convention applies in instances when the evidence or witness is present in the State of execution. See B. Ristau, II International Judicial Assistance (Civil and Commercial) (1984), pp.216–220
272. Westinghouse, discussed in Ristau, pp.5–39
273. see also Dugan, Westinghouse, at p.43 (arguing that this evinces a practice for courts to be bound by privilege rules of State of execution that should be recognised by U.S. courts).
274. See e.g. U.K. Evidence Act 1975 §3 (protecting a witness from having to give any evidence which would be privileged in ordinary civil proceedings in the requesting country, subject to certain procedural limitations)
275. New Zealand Evidence Act 1908 §48D(1) (Witnesses “shall have the same right to refuse to answer any question, whether on the ground that his answer might tend to incriminate him, or on the ground of privilege …”).
276. Platto, New Zealand Evidence Act, at p.94.
277. E. C. Dudley, Jr., “Federal Rule of Evidence 501: Privilege and Vertical Choice of Law” (1994) 82 Geo. LJ. 1781.
278. Klaxon Con. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co., 313 U.S. 487 (1941)
279. see e.g. Hyde Construction Co. v. Koehring, 455 F.2d 339 (5th Cir. 1972).
280. See e.g. Hercules Inc. v. Martin Marietta Corp., 143 F.R.D. 266, 268–69 (D.Utah 1992).
281. See Shaklee Corp. v. Gunnell, 110 F.R.D. 190, 192 (N.D. Cal. 1986)
282. Palmer v. Fisher, 228 F.2d 603 (7th Cir. 1955)
283. but see In re Cepeda, 233 F. Supp. 465 (S.D.N.Y. 1964)
284. see also In Re Codey, 82 N.Y. 2d 521, 530 (1993) (applying privilege law of the trial court jurisdiction). In cases where both laws would reach the same conclusion, the court may not specify which law is applied.
285. In re American General Life and Accident Ins. Co., 26 Med. L. Rprt. 1606 (Sup. Ct. Bronx 1996).
286. Dudley, Med. L. Rprt.
287. In re Investigation of World Arrangements, 13 F.R.D. 280, 286 (D.D.C. 1952)
288. Graco, Inc. v. Kremlin, Inc. 101 F.R.D. 503, 516 (N.D. III. 1987)
289. see generally K. Reichenberg, F.R.D., at p.80 n.211.
290. See 28 U.S.C. §1782 (1988), Article 12, which allows a court to compel testimony for use in foreign proceedings, and states that “[a] person may not be compelled to give his testimony or statement … in violation of any legally applicable privilege.” Although this was intended to include deference to foreign privileges when they legally apply
291. see In re Erato, 2 F.3d 11 (1993), this does not constitute a blanket incorporation of foreign privileges into United States law.
292. See also In re Grand Jury Proceedings, Doe # 700, 817 F.2d 1108, 1112 (4th Cir. 1987).
293. Note also that the Hague Convention does not include international arbitration in the scope of “foreign proceedings”. NBC v. Bear Stearns, 165 F. 3d 184 (1999).
294. In re Asta Medica, S.A. 981 F.2d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 1992).
295. But see In re application of Gianoli Aldunate, 3 F.3d 54, 58 (2d. Cir. 1993)
296. (discovery possible under 28 U.S.C. §1782 even when information would not be discoverable in the jurisdiction of the party seeking production)
297. In Re Application of Metallgesellschaft AG, 121 F.3d 77, 79 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (same).
298. ALI Res't Law Governing Lawyers, Sec. 122 comment e.
299. See e.g. Foseco Int'l Ltd. v. Fireline, Inc. 546 F. Supp 22, 25 (N.D. Ohio 1985) (recognising that communications between patent agents and foreign corporations may be treated as privileged if privilege is recognised in the country in which patent application is filed).
300. In re Ampicillin Antitrust Litigation, 81 F.R.D. 377, 391 (D.D.C. 1978) (recognising that U.S. has no strong policy interest in patent agent communications relates to patent activity in the U.K. and therefore will defer to U.K. rule in U.S. litigation).
301. Golden Trade S.r.L. v. Lee Apparel Co., et al. 143 F.R.D. 514 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) (claims of attorney-client privilege attached to communications between a company and its patent agents outside the U.S. determined under law of the place of the corporation because of comity).
302. Stryker Bayer AG and Miles, Inc. v. Bayer Laboratories, Inc. 33 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1655, 1994 WL 705331 S.D.N.Y. (communications between a company and its patent agents outside the U.S. privileged).
303. Duttle v. Bandler and Kass, 127 F.R.D. 46, 51 (S.D.N.Y. 1989).
304. See discussion in Dugan, F.R.D., at p.49 (arguing that the court may have been reluctant to apply the privilege because it was raised by plaintiff as opposed to defendant).
305. See also Ghana Supply Com'n v. New England Power Co., 83 F.R.D. 586, 589 (D. Mass 1979) (refusing to allow a plaintiff to claim foreign privilege in U.S. courts when it chose the forum).
306. Odone v. Croda International PLC, 950 F. Supp. 10 (1997).
307. See also In re Honda America Motor Co., 168 F.R.D. 535, 539 (1996)
308. Duplan Corp. v. Deering Milliken, Inc. 397 F. Supp. 1146, 1169 (1975) (finding Article 378 of the French Penal Code and §15(1) of the British Civil Evidence Act extend attorney-client privilege to those who are not a member of a bar).
309. In re Erato, 2 F.3d 11 (1993).
310. Treaty on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, Art.5, 12 June 1981 U.S-Neth., T.I.A.S. No. 10,734.
311. Some countries have passed blocking statutes that prohibit compliance with discovery orders for the production of evidence located within the blocking State's territory. Such statutes can include penal sanctions for violations. See G. Born, International Civil Litigation in United States Courts 371–373 (2d ed. 1992).
312. Societe Internationale v. Rogers, 357 U.S. 197 (1958).
313. U.S. v. First National City Bank, 396 F.2d 897 (2d Cir. 1968).
314. United States v. First National Bank of Chicago, 699 F. 2d 341 (7th Cir. 1983) (no production ordered in response to IRS summons when Greek law imposed criminal sanctions for disclosure of bank documents).
315. United States v. Balsys, 118 S. Ct. 2218 (1998).
316. See Amann, S. Ct., at p.1201
317. S. A. Leahy, “United States v. Balsys: Foreign Prosecution and the Applicability of the Fifth Amendment Privilege Against Self-incrimination” (1999) 48 DePaul L. Rev. 987.
318. See Renfield Corp. v. Remy Martin S.A., 98 F.R.D. 442 (D. Del. 1982) (applying choice-of-law analysis to determine United States law had most significant relationship with the case, leading to decision not to order discovery of privileged documents).
319. Reichenberg, F.R.D., at 132.
320. Civil Evidence Act [1968] §14(1).
321. Re: Westinghouse Electric Corp. [1977] 3 All E.R. 703 (Denning, J.).
322. [1997] A.C. 238 (PC).
323. Idem at 251B-D.
324. Credit Suisse Fides Trust SA v. Cuoghi, [1997] All E.R. 724.
325. Bank Valletta PLC v. National Crime Authority, [1999] 164 A.L.R. 45.
326. Spencer v. The Queen [1985] 2 S.C.R. 278
327. Arab Banking Corp. v. Wightman 70 A.C.W.S. 3d 50 [Quebec Ct. App. 1997].
328. Unilever PLC v. Procter and Gamble, 38 F.T.R. 319 (Fed. Trial Div. 1990).
329. Bourns v. Raychem Corp., [1999] All E.R. 154.
330. Rule 12.2.
331. Art.20.6, reprinted in (1997) Y.B. Comm. Arb. 303, 313. The CPR Rules for Non-Administered Arbitration of Business Disputes likewise do not require the tribunal to apply rules of evidence used in judicial proceedings, but require the tribunal to “apply the lawyer-client privilege and the work-product immunity.” Rule 11.2.
332. But see the CPR Rules, Rule 11.2, idem.
333. B. M. Cremades, “Powers of the Arbitrators to Decide on the Admissibility of Evidence and to Organize the Production of Evidence” (1999) 10 ICC Int'l Ct. of Arb. Bull. 49, 50.
334. IBA Rules Art.9(2) paras a and f.
335. IBA Rules. para b. Previously IBA Rules of Evidence had no such provisions and in fact allowed the drawing of an inference if a party failed to comply with an order to produce documents.
336. See M. Rubino-Sammartano, International Arbitration Law (1990), p.382.
337. The Mediterranean and Middle East Institute of Arbitration's Standard Rules of Evidence, Art.5(8) allows the arbitrator to draw such inferences when there is an “unjustified refusal” to produce documents or testify. Idem at 383.
338. See Idem.
339. R. Rodman, Commercial Arbitration with Forms 405 (1984).
340. G. B. Born, International Commercial Arbitration in the United States (1994), p.840.
341. See R. Bernstein (ed.), Handbook of Arbitration Practice (1987), pp.162–163
342. see also Moore v. Conliffe, 7 Cal. 4th 634, 637–638 (1994) (AAA arbitration functionally equivalent to judicial proceedings to which the litigation privilege applies)
343. Robbins v. Day, 954 F.2d 679 (11th Cir. 1992) (recognition of accountants' privilege by arbitral tribunal not grounds for vacating award)
344. Minerals and Chemicals Philipp Corp. v. Panamerican Commodities, S.A., 224 N.Y.S. 2d 763 (Sup. Ct. 1962) (arbitrators' subpoena not enforceable as to privileged material)
345. but see DiMaina v. N.Y. State Dep't of Mental Hygiene, 386 N.Y.S. 2d 590 (Sup. Ct. 1976) (arbitrators' subpoena enforceable under theory that privileges had been waived).
346. Fahnestock & Co. v. Waltman, 1990 U.S. Dist. Lexis 11024 (S.D.N.Y. 23 Aug. 1990) (arbitrators properly applied privilege)
347. see also 9 U.S.C. 10(a)(3).
348. However, in Chiarella v. Viscount Industrial Co., 1993 U.S. Dist LEXIS 16903 (S.D.N.Y. 24 Nov. 1993), the court held that arbitrators did not exceed their authority by ordering production of some, but not all, evidence asserted to be privileged. Commentators have noted that the arbitral panel in this case did not actually view any documents asserted to be privileged.
349. J. Carter, “The Attorney-Client Privilege in Arbitration” (Winter 1996/1997) ADR Currents 1, 17.
350. Painewebber Group v. Zinsmeyer Trusts 187 F. 3d 988 (1987) (1999)
351. Hunt v. Mobil Oil Corp., 654 F. Supp. 1487, 1511.
352. Marc Blessing (1993) “Mandatory Rules of Law versus Party Autonomy in International Arbitration” 14:4 Journal of International Arbitration 25.
353. A. Redfern and M. Hunter, Law and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration (3d. ed. 1999) p.94. Sometimes procedural rules might give the panel discretion in the choice-of-law issue.
354. See e.g. Iran-United States Claims Tribunal Rules, Art.33 (providing broad discretion to the Tribunal in determining what law is applied).
355. Smit, Art.33.
356. See Res't (2d) Conflict of Laws 138 cmt. c (1971) (“a rule phrased in terms of evidence may in fact be a rule of substantive law”).
357. See e.g. Declaration of the Government of the Democratic and Popular Republic of Algeria Concerning the Settlement of Claims by the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Art.5 (Iran-United States Claims Tribunal allowed to decide cases on basis of principles of international law).
358. See e.g. K. P. Berger, The Creeping Codification of the Lex Mercatoria (1999).
359. Art.38(1c). See generally V. D. Degan, Sources of International Law (1997), pp.14–141.
360. Petroleum Development (Trucial Coast) Ltd. and The Sheikh of Abu Dhabi (1952) 1 I.C.L.Q. 247
361. see discussion in Redfern and Hunter, I.C.L.Q., at pp.112–123
362. see also V. V. Veeder, “The Lena Goldfields Arbitration” (1998) 47 I.C.L.Q. 747 (arbitration key for developing the general principle of unjust enrichment).
363. Degan, I.C.L.Q., at pp.118–124
364. Redfern and Hunter, I.C.L.Q., at p.122.
365. See e.g. G. Hercsegh, General Principles of Law and the International Legal Order (1969), pp.97–100 (arguing that general principles should not be a source of international law).
366. Degan, General Principles of Law and the International Legal Order
367. see also B. Cheng, General Principles of Law (1953).
368. Degan, General Principles of Law, at p.42 (provisions were “well-known principles from the law of procedure common to the majority of advanced legal systems of States”).
369. Degan, General Principles of Law at p.73. (“As precepts of a very broad character they can obtain in different times and in various types of legal relationship a content which is not always quite identical”).
370. Idem at pp.76–77 (discussing fraud).
371. Oil Field of Texas, Inc. and The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, et al., Interlocutory Award No. ITL 10–43-FT (9 Dec. 1982)
372. reprinted in 1 Iran-U.S. C.T.R. 347.
373. The Tribunal frequently relies on general principles of law or the lex mercatoria and has contributed to their development in international law. George Aldrich, Jurisprudence of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal (1996), p.157
374. Charles N. Brower and Jason D. Breuschke, The Iran-United States Claims Tribunal (1998), pp.637–638.
375. See Prosecutor v. Drazen Erdemovic, Case No. IT-96–22A (ICTY, Appeals Chamber, 7 Oct. 1997) at para. 57
376. see also Cheng, The Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, at pp.29–99 (discussing the general principle of self-preservation of States).
377. Y. Derains, Public Policy and the Law Applicable to the Dispute in International Arbitration in P. Sanders (ed.), Comparative Arbitration Practice and Public Policy in Arbitration ICCA Congress Series No. 3 (1987), p.227
378. P. Lalive, Comparative Arbitration Practice and Public Policy in Arbitration ICCA Congress Series No. 3, at p.257.
379. P. Lalive, Transnational (or Truly International) Public Policy and International Arbitration in P. Sanders (ed.), Comparative Arbitration Practice and Public Policy in Arbitration ICCA Congress Series No. 3 (1987), at p.273.
380. Idem at p.276.
381. Idem at p.284.
382. Idem at p.287.
383. Idem at p.314.
384. M. Reimman, “Savigny's Triumph? Choice of Law in Contract Cases at the Close of the Twentieth Century” (1995) 39 Virginia J. Int'l L. 571, 592.
385. Dugan, Virginia J. Int'l L., at pp.38–39 (“deprived of their expectations of confidentiality merely because they find themselves haled into unexpected forums”).
386. Lalive, Virginia J. Int'l L., n.232 at pp.305–306
387. see also D. Caron, “The Nature of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal and the Evolving Structure of International Dispute Resolution” (1990) 84 A.J.I.L. 104.
388. New York Convention on the Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, Art.V(2)(b).
389. See Hearn v. Rhay, 68 FRD 574 (E.D. Wash. 1975)
390. Bowne of New York City, Inc. v. Ambrose Corp, 150 F.R.D. 465 (S.D.N.Y. 1993)
391. Paramount Communications v. Donaghy, 858 F. Supp 391 (S.D.N.Y. 1994).
392. J. F. O'Connor, Good Faith in International Law (1991)
393. Cheng, Good Faith in International Law.
394. Cheng, idem at 105.