Privileged Material Under Dispute in OneTaste Case

In the continuing saga of OneTaste, Paul Pelletier, OneTaste Counsel, filed a letter demanding the return of the stolen privileged document that the Government used to build its indictment. He even suggested that the government committed a felony by not reporting the stolen document immediately.

The letter is attached in this link.

Below is a summary of the letter, which addresses the legal dispute between OneTaste, Inc. and the U.S. Government over the government’s possession and refusal to return confidential attorney-client privileged documents and attorney billing invoices belonging to OneTaste. OneTaste argues that these materials were improperly obtained and retained by the prosecution team, in violation of legal privilege protections, and now seeks their return, as well as sanctions against the prosecution.

Key Points:

1. Privileged Materials: OneTaste asserts that the government obtained documents clearly marked as “Attorney-Client Privileged” in 2021. Despite these warnings, the prosecution used these documents in its investigation without following the proper protocol, such as involving a DOJ-mandated filter team to segregate privileged information
2. Prosecution’s Defense: The prosecution claims three reasons for not returning the documents: (1) the documents may not be privileged, (2) OneTaste waived its privilege by not discovering this sooner, and (3) the prosecution may retain the documents if they have a “legitimate continuing interest.” OneTaste disputes all these justifications, arguing that no legitimate interest can justify retaining privileged material.
3. Government’s Conduct: OneTaste accuses the prosecution of ignoring warnings about the privileged nature of the documents, misleading the court about how they acquired the materials, and failing to take proper steps to segregate or return them. The government allegedly waited over three years to turn these documents over to a filter team, long after they had been used to build a case against OneTaste employees. OneTaste also suggests that the prosecution may be criminally liable for not reporting the theft of the document immediately.
4. Case Precedents: OneTaste argues that the government’s cited legal cases (like Allen v. Grist Mill Capital LLC) do not apply to situations involving attorney-client privilege and that the government has no right to retain such privileged materials. OneTaste refers to other cases, such as Harbor Healthcare and United States v. Avennatti, to demonstrate that the prosecution’s handling of the materials was improper.
5. Sanctions: OneTaste calls for sanctions against the prosecution, alleging that the government knowingly received privileged documents obtained through illegal means, and intentionally delayed submitting them for proper review. OneTaste further argues that the government attempted to mislead the court about the source of the privileged documents.
6. Requested Relief: OneTaste seeks the immediate return of all privileged materials, certification of the destruction of electronic copies, full disclosure of how the privileged documents were handled, identification of all parties exposed to them, and sanctions for the government’s misconduct.

In summary, OneTaste argues that the government unlawfully obtained and retained its privileged materials, requests their return, and calls for sanctions to be imposed for the prosecution’s improper conduct in handling these sensitive communications.