Deferred and Non-Prosecution Agreement Confidentiality

An excellent piece from the Legal Times Blog was forwarded to me by Ryan McConnell (one of the co-authors of a research paper that we published at the beginning of the year). In short, Williams Co. entered a deferred prosecution agreement with the Justice Department in 2006 during the federal investigation of the California energy crisis. Williams officials admitted its traders misreported information to a commodities journal, and the company agreed to pay a $50 million penalty. One of their executives, Scott Thompson was individually indicted in 2006.Thompson and his lawyers hope to gain access to all information that Williams Co. furnished to the DOJ during the investigation. This week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit agrees that Thompson should at least be able to present his case for obtaining access to these documents.BLT write:

An energy company that provided confidential records to the Justice Department as part of a criminal investigation could now be forced to turn the records over to a former employee, who has been indicted for allegedly conspiring to manipulate the price of natural gas.

Lawyers for the Oklahoma-based Williams Co. say the records given to Justice are protected under work-product doctrine and should not be released to the defendant, Scott Thompson. Some of the records have already been given to Thompson’s lawyers. Counsel for Williams Co., Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partner Andrew Tulumello, is fighting to protect attorney notes, among other documents.

But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit today said Thompson is entitled at least to a hearing in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to determine whether any of the withheld records are material to his defense. A three-judge panel ruled unanimously to remand the case to the trial court.

See the whole entry here.