1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Court Orders Opening of Pandora's Box

Court Orders Opening of Pandora's Box

Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.12.14

In U.S. ex rel. Barko v. Halliburton Co. (D.D.C. Mar. 6, 2014), the court ordered the defendants in a qui tam FCA case to produce internal reports and other documents that were prepared during the course of internal investigations initiated in response to "tips" regarding potential misconduct, even when the tips were made directly to the defendants' Law Department, the reports were transmitted to the Law Department, and the investigations were initiated and managed by senior in-house attorneys. The court concluded that the materials were not protected by the attorney-client privilege because the investigations were "undertaken pursuant to regulatory law and corporate policy"— i.e., the contract clause required by the FAR Mandatory Disclosure rules, which set forth requirements for a contractor's code of business ethics and conduct, compliance program, and internal controls system—"rather than for the purpose of obtaining legal advice," and that they were not protected by the work product doctrine because they were not prepared in anticipation of litigation.


Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 07.23.26

Protester Beware: Recent GAO Decision Suggests Traditional “Reasonable Possibility” Prejudice Standard May Be Evolving

It is well established that “[c]ompetitive prejudice is an essential element of every viable protest.” Yet, for decades, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has tempered this requirement with two critical corollaries: protesters need only demonstrate a “reasonable possibility” that they were prejudiced by an agency’s actions, and GAO “will resolve doubts regarding prejudice in favor of the protester.” These principles have been consistent features of GAO’s bid protest jurisprudence for more than 30 years. See, e.g., United Int’l Eng'g, Inc., B-245448, Jan. 29, 1992, 71 CPD ¶ 177....