Skip to content

Common Interest Agreement Virginia

2005) (Reaffirming the District Court`s refusal to apply the common defence privilege before the date on which the parties effectively cooperated in a common defence in the absence of a common defence agreement, no evidence that the parties adopted a common legal strategy, that a party was in the “early stages of its internal investigation” and that there had been discussions with the supporter of privilege, “gathering information” instead of “formulating a common defence”; EDF. Election Comm`n, 178 F.R.D. at 73 (finding that the rule of common interest was not applicable where the protocol did not show, at the time of disclosure of inside information, evidence of a `real, contemplated or prospective dispute` and that the third party was involved in the dispute only to the extent that it provided information to prepare for an IRS review, it did not benefit from the information shared and was not “directly concerned” by the outcome of the dispute [*51]; Front Royal Ins. Co. v. . . .