<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Presnell on Privileges</title>
	<atom:link href="https://presnellonprivileges.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://presnellonprivileges.com/</link>
	<description>The latest developments on evidentiary privileges for corporate and outside counsel</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Feb 2025 11:40:58 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	

 
<site xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">40313090</site>	<item>
		<title>Peer Review Privilege in Federal Courts: Key Insights and Case Study</title>
		<link>https://presnellonprivileges.com/2025/02/04/understanding-medical-peer-review-privilege-in-federal-court/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tpresnell]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Feb 2025 16:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[6th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conflict of Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Peer Review Privilege]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tennessee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tennessee Eastern District]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[choice of law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[peer review privilege]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://presnellonprivileges.com/?p=11443</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>Fifty states recognize a medical peer-review privilege that safeguards certain healthcare discussions, promoting candid evaluations post-adverse events. In federal courts, the application of this privilege is complex, often depending on jurisdiction. While some federal courts have explored privileges, most reject a federal common-law peer-review privilege, leaving limited protections under existing statutes.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://presnellonprivileges.com/2025/02/04/understanding-medical-peer-review-privilege-in-federal-court/">Peer Review Privilege in Federal Courts: Key Insights and Case Study</a> appeared first on <a href="https://presnellonprivileges.com">Presnell on Privileges</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">11443</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>SAR Privilege Restricts Banking Expert’s Testimony, Requires Explanatory Jury Instruction</title>
		<link>https://presnellonprivileges.com/2025/01/28/sar-privilege-restricts-banking-experts-testimony-requires-explanatory-jury-instruction/</link>
					<comments>https://presnellonprivileges.com/2025/01/28/sar-privilege-restricts-banking-experts-testimony-requires-explanatory-jury-instruction/#comments</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tpresnell]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Jan 2025 16:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[9th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[California]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[California Northern District]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SAR Privilege]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SAR privilege]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[suspicious activity report]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://presnellonprivileges.com/?p=11395</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>Federal banking regulations establish confidentiality for suspicious-activity reports (SARs), which courts have interpreted as creating an evidentiary privilege. The Camenisch v. Umpqua Bank case illustrates how this privilege impacts discovery and trial, especially regarding class-action lawsuits, with a notable increase in SAR filings potentially leading to further litigation complexities.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://presnellonprivileges.com/2025/01/28/sar-privilege-restricts-banking-experts-testimony-requires-explanatory-jury-instruction/">SAR Privilege Restricts Banking Expert’s Testimony, Requires Explanatory Jury Instruction</a> appeared first on <a href="https://presnellonprivileges.com">Presnell on Privileges</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://presnellonprivileges.com/2025/01/28/sar-privilege-restricts-banking-experts-testimony-requires-explanatory-jury-instruction/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">11395</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Nvidia Partially Reveals Investigation to German Court—Waives Work Product and Privilege in U.S. Action</title>
		<link>https://presnellonprivileges.com/2025/01/21/nvidia-partially-reveals-investigation-to-german-court-waives-work-product-and-privilege-in-u-s-action/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tpresnell]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jan 2025 16:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[9th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Attorney-Client Privilege]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[California]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[California Northern District]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[In-House Counsel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Waiver]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Work Product Doctrine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[attorney-client privilege]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[in-house counsel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[internal investigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[waiver]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[work product doctrine]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://presnellonprivileges.com/?p=11344</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>It’s a conundrum, for sure.&#160; A company receives notice of potential wrongdoing, directs its in-house counsel to investigate the issue, and then must decide how, if at all, to affirmatively use the investigation to defend its conduct.&#160; A significant consideration in determining whether to use investigation results is waiver of</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://presnellonprivileges.com/2025/01/21/nvidia-partially-reveals-investigation-to-german-court-waives-work-product-and-privilege-in-u-s-action/">Nvidia Partially Reveals Investigation to German Court—Waives Work Product and Privilege in U.S. Action</a> appeared first on <a href="https://presnellonprivileges.com">Presnell on Privileges</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">11344</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>In-House Counsel’s PowerPoint Presentation Not Privileged, Court Rules</title>
		<link>https://presnellonprivileges.com/2025/01/14/in-house-counsels-powerpoint-presentation-not-privileged-court-rules/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tpresnell]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jan 2025 16:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[3d Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Attorney-Client Privilege]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[In-House Counsel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pennsylvania Western. District]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[attorney-client privilege]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[in-house counsel]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://presnellonprivileges.com/?p=11297</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>The court ruled that the attorney-client privilege does not protect a PowerPoint presentation created by in-house counsel for antitrust training, deeming it a general instructional guide on business policies rather than legal advice. The decision emphasized the lack of particularized legal inquiries, leading to the order for production of the presentation.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://presnellonprivileges.com/2025/01/14/in-house-counsels-powerpoint-presentation-not-privileged-court-rules/">In-House Counsel’s PowerPoint Presentation Not Privileged, Court Rules</a> appeared first on <a href="https://presnellonprivileges.com">Presnell on Privileges</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">11297</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Investigations of Employee Harassment Complaints—Are They Privileged?</title>
		<link>https://presnellonprivileges.com/2024/02/15/investigations-of-employee-harassment-complaints-are-they-privileged/</link>
					<comments>https://presnellonprivileges.com/2024/02/15/investigations-of-employee-harassment-complaints-are-they-privileged/#comments</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tpresnell]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Feb 2024 16:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[10th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Attorney-Client Privilege]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internal Investigations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Utah]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Utah District]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[attorney-client privilege]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://presnellonprivileges.com/?p=10977</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>Learn how to succeed, and fail, when addressing whether investigations are privileged.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://presnellonprivileges.com/2024/02/15/investigations-of-employee-harassment-complaints-are-they-privileged/">Investigations of Employee Harassment Complaints—Are They Privileged?</a> appeared first on <a href="https://presnellonprivileges.com">Presnell on Privileges</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://presnellonprivileges.com/2024/02/15/investigations-of-employee-harassment-complaints-are-they-privileged/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">10977</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Advice-of-Counsel Privilege Waiver—How Far Does It Extend?</title>
		<link>https://presnellonprivileges.com/2024/02/06/advice-of-counsel-privilege-waiver-how-far-does-it-extend/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tpresnell]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Feb 2024 16:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[7th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Attorney-Client Privilege]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conflict of Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Illinois]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Illinois Northern District]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[advice of counsel defense]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[attorney-client privilege]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[waiver]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://presnellonprivileges.com/?p=10796</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>The broad concept of at-issue privilege waiver is best illustrated by the advice-of-counsel waiver doctrine which, as its moniker signals, arises when a party claims that he relied on his lawyer’s advice before engaging in certain conduct.&#160; The doctrine invokes the sword-and-shield imagery by precluding a party from using privileged</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://presnellonprivileges.com/2024/02/06/advice-of-counsel-privilege-waiver-how-far-does-it-extend/">Advice-of-Counsel Privilege Waiver—How Far Does It Extend?</a> appeared first on <a href="https://presnellonprivileges.com">Presnell on Privileges</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">10796</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Tie Goes to Business: Court Rejects Privilege for Emails between In-House and Outside Counsel</title>
		<link>https://presnellonprivileges.com/2024/01/25/a-tie-goes-to-business-court-rejects-privilege-for-emails-between-in-house-and-outside-counsel/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tpresnell]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Jan 2024 16:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Attorney-Client Privilege]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[In-House Counsel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[corporate attorney-client privilege]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[in-house counsel]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://presnellonprivileges.com/?p=10896</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>Sandlot baseball stars like me know that “a tie goes to the runner.”  It’s an unwritten rule, for sure, and some say a myth. In baseball, this rule provides that, in a close play, most often at first base, if the runner and the baseball reach the base simultaneously, then</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://presnellonprivileges.com/2024/01/25/a-tie-goes-to-business-court-rejects-privilege-for-emails-between-in-house-and-outside-counsel/">A Tie Goes to Business: Court Rejects Privilege for Emails between In-House and Outside Counsel</a> appeared first on <a href="https://presnellonprivileges.com">Presnell on Privileges</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">10896</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Major Announcement: LexisNexis Publishes Presnell and Arth’s Evidentiary Privileges Treatise</title>
		<link>https://presnellonprivileges.com/2024/01/17/major-announcement-lexisnexis-publishes-presnell-and-arths-evidentiary-privileges-treatise/</link>
					<comments>https://presnellonprivileges.com/2024/01/17/major-announcement-lexisnexis-publishes-presnell-and-arths-evidentiary-privileges-treatise/#comments</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tpresnell]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Jan 2024 16:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://presnellonprivileges.com/?p=10921</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>LexisNexis published Presnell and Arth's evidentiary privileges treatise.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://presnellonprivileges.com/2024/01/17/major-announcement-lexisnexis-publishes-presnell-and-arths-evidentiary-privileges-treatise/">Major Announcement: LexisNexis Publishes Presnell and Arth’s Evidentiary Privileges Treatise</a> appeared first on <a href="https://presnellonprivileges.com">Presnell on Privileges</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://presnellonprivileges.com/2024/01/17/major-announcement-lexisnexis-publishes-presnell-and-arths-evidentiary-privileges-treatise/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">10921</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Personal Privileged Email on Employer’s System—A Different View</title>
		<link>https://presnellonprivileges.com/2024/01/09/personal-privileged-email-on-employers-system-a-different-view/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tpresnell]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Jan 2024 16:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Attorney-Client Privilege]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Oregon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Waiver]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[attorney-client privilege]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[corporate attorney-client privilege]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[waiver]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://presnellonprivileges.com/?p=10836</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>In an earlier post, Company Policy, Personal Emails, and Privilege Protection, I discussed take-aways from a federal-court decision that an employee had no reasonable expectation of privacy—and therefore no privilege protection—for emails sent to her personal attorney on her employer’s email system.  But just a few days later, the Oregon</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://presnellonprivileges.com/2024/01/09/personal-privileged-email-on-employers-system-a-different-view/">Personal Privileged Email on Employer’s System—A Different View</a> appeared first on <a href="https://presnellonprivileges.com">Presnell on Privileges</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">10836</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Company Policy, Personal Emails, and Privilege Protection</title>
		<link>https://presnellonprivileges.com/2023/12/19/company-policy-personal-emails-and-privilege-protection/</link>
					<comments>https://presnellonprivileges.com/2023/12/19/company-policy-personal-emails-and-privilege-protection/#comments</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tpresnell]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Dec 2023 16:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[8th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Attorney-Client Privilege]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Missouri]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Missouri Eastern District]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Waiver]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[advice of counsel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[at-issue waiver]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[attorney-client privielge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[waiver]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://presnellonprivileges.com/?p=10766</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>It happens more than we know—employees use their company email to send personal messages, such as scheduling a medical appointment, checking-in with a child’s teacher, or sending a resume to an employer located on greener pastures.  The messages winding their way through the company’s email system contain various levels of</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://presnellonprivileges.com/2023/12/19/company-policy-personal-emails-and-privilege-protection/">Company Policy, Personal Emails, and Privilege Protection</a> appeared first on <a href="https://presnellonprivileges.com">Presnell on Privileges</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://presnellonprivileges.com/2023/12/19/company-policy-personal-emails-and-privilege-protection/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">10766</post-id>	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>