Analysis of British American Tobacco's questionable use of privilege and protected document claims at the Guildford Depository. Issue 3 (27th June 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: LeGresley, Eric; Lee, Kelley
• Is Part Of: Tobacco control. Volume 26:Issue 3(2017)
• Page Start: 316
• Page End: 322
• Publication Date: 2016-06-27
• Subjects: Tobacco industry -- Litigation -- Public policy -- Tobacco industry documents; Tobacco use -- Prevention -- Periodicals; Tobacco use -- Periodicals; Smoking -- Law and legislation -- Periodicals; Smoking -- prevention & control -- Periodicals; Tobacco Use Disorder -- prevention & control -- Periodicals; Tobacco -- Periodicals; Electronic journals; 613.85
• DOI: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-052955
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0964-4563

Abstract

Abstract : Background: Tobacco companies have a documented history of attempting to hide information from public scrutiny, including inappropriate privilege claims. The 1998 Minnesota Consent Judgement created two depositories to provide public access to discovered documents. Users raised concerns about the access conditions and ongoing integrity of the Guildford Depository collection operated until 2015 by British American Tobacco (BAT). Methods: A metadata search of the Legacy Tobacco Documents Library identified inconsistent privilege claims, and duplicates of documents withheld by BAT from public visitors. A review of the validity of claims, for documents obtained through these searches, was conducted against recognised legal definitions of privilege. Findings: BAT has asserted inappropriate privilege claims over 49% of the documents reviewed (n=63). The quantity of such claims and consistency of the stated rationale for the privilege claims suggest a concerted effort rather than human error. Conclusions: There was insufficient attention given to the operation of the Guildford Depository by the original plaintiffs, including to the subsequent use of privilege claims. Appropriate access to these documents, commensurate with the terms of legal settlements creating the collection, was critical given their public interest value for enhancing understanding of industry strategies and activities, informing of policy interventions, and for holding the industry to account. Future legal settlements should prevent defendants from subsequently withholding disclosed documents, aside from those legitimately privileged, from public view. Control of publicly disclosed documents should not be placed back into the hands of defendant tobacco companies. Plaintiffs also need to invest adequate resources into policing claims of legal privilege.