- 10 -
Grand Jury Proceedings, 604 F.2d 798, 803 (3d Cir. 1979); Puerto
Rico v. SS Zoe Colocotroni, 61 F.R.D. 653, 658 (D.P.R. 1974).
The work product doctrine is intended to enable a lawyer to
“work with a certain degree of privacy, free from unnecessary
intrusion by opposing parties and their counsel.” Hickman v.
Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 510 (1947). A civil tax case could be
anticipated to follow a criminal tax case. The rationale behind
the work product doctrine would be frustrated if documents
prepared for the first action were open to an opposing party in
the second action that was anticipated and concerned a related
matter. Documents prepared for a civil proceeding before the
Environmental Protection Agency qualified for the work product
privilege in a subsequent criminal matter. See In re Grand Jury
Proceedings, supra.
Respondent’s CRL was prepared in connection with
petitioner’s criminal tax investigation. There is subject matter
identity between petitioner’s criminal tax violations and
petitioner’s civil tax liability and the present civil tax
action. There is a foreseeable and reasonable expectation that
the Government will pursue a civil tax liability that may be
derivative of criminal tax violations. We do not hesitate in
finding a nexus between respondent’s CRL and this civil
proceeding. Accordingly, the work product privilege should
extend to this civil proceeding even though the letter was
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011