Skip to content
National Association of Attorneys General
  • Issues
    • Issues
      • Anticorruption
      • Antitrust
      • Bankruptcy
      • Charities
      • Civil Law
    • Issues
      • Consumer Protection
      • Criminal Law
      • Cyber and Technology
      • Disaster Preparedness & Response
      • Elder Justice
    • Issues
      • Ethics
      • Human Trafficking
      • Medicaid Fraud
      • Opioids
      • Powers & Duties
    • Issues
      • Public Health
      • The U.S. Supreme Court
      • Tobacco
      • Veterans & Military
  • Our Work
    • Training & Research
    • Centers
      • Center for Consumer Protection
      • Center for Supreme Court Advocacy
      • Center for Tobacco & Public Health
    • Committees
    • Initiatives
      • Presidential Initiative
      • Strategic Partnerships
      • International Fellows
      • COVID-19
    • Bankruptcy
    • Policy & Advocacy
  • Events & Training
    • Event Calendar
    • Attorney General Symposium
    • Presidential Summit
    • Capital Forum
    • Region Meetings
    • CLE Credit
    • NAAG Trainings
    • Online Learning
    • NAMFCU Trainings
    • NAAG Faculty
  • News & Resources
    • Attorney General Journal
    • Reports & Publications
    • Newsroom
    • NAAG Policy Letters
    • Podcasts
    • Online Learning
    • Research & Data
    • Member Directory
  • Attorneys General
    • What Attorneys General Do
    • Who is my Attorney General?
    • Attorneys General Office 101
    • Research & Data
    • Awards & Recognition
    • Careers in Attorney General Offices
    • Careers in Medicaid Fraud Control Units
  • About NAAG
    • NAAG Staff
    • NAAG Leadership
    • NAAG Member Services
    • NAAG Regions
    • NAAG FAQs
    • SAGE
    • NAMFCU
    • Newsroom
    • Careers at NAAG
  • Find my AG
  • About NAMFCU
    • About the Medicaid Fraud Control Units
    • Reporting Fraud and Abuse
    • MFCU Member Hub
    • Careers with a MFCU
  • Contact Us
National Association of Attorneys General
  • Find My AG
  • Consumer Complaints
  • Member Benefits
  • Contact Us
Log In
  • Issues
    • Issues
      • Anticorruption
      • Antitrust
      • Bankruptcy
      • Charities
      • Civil Law
    • Issues
      • Consumer Protection
      • Criminal Law
      • Cyber and Technology
      • Disaster Preparedness & Response
      • Elder Justice
    • Issues
      • Ethics
      • Human Trafficking
      • Medicaid Fraud
      • Opioids
      • Powers & Duties
    • Issues
      • Public Health
      • The U.S. Supreme Court
      • Tobacco
      • Veterans & Military
  • Our Work
    • Training & Research
    • Centers
      • Center for Consumer Protection
      • Center for Supreme Court Advocacy
      • Center for Tobacco & Public Health
    • Committees
    • Initiatives
      • Presidential Initiative
      • Strategic Partnerships
      • International Fellows
      • COVID-19
    • Bankruptcy
    • Policy & Advocacy
  • Events & Training
    • Event Calendar
    • Attorney General Symposium
    • Presidential Summit
    • Capital Forum
    • Region Meetings
    • CLE Credit
    • NAAG Trainings
    • Online Learning
    • NAMFCU Trainings
    • NAAG Faculty
  • News & Resources
    • Attorney General Journal
    • Reports & Publications
    • Newsroom
    • NAAG Policy Letters
    • Podcasts
    • Online Learning
    • Research & Data
    • Member Directory
  • Attorneys General
    • What Attorneys General Do
    • Who is my Attorney General?
    • Attorneys General Office 101
    • Research & Data
    • Awards & Recognition
    • Careers in Attorney General Offices
    • Careers in Medicaid Fraud Control Units
  • About NAAG
    • NAAG Staff
    • NAAG Leadership
    • NAAG Member Services
    • NAAG Regions
    • NAAG FAQs
    • SAGE
    • NAMFCU
    • Newsroom
    • Careers at NAAG
  • Find my AG
  • About NAMFCU
    • About the Medicaid Fraud Control Units
    • Reporting Fraud and Abuse
    • MFCU Member Hub
    • Careers with a MFCU
  • Contact Us

Recent Decisions on the Common Interest Doctrine and Multistate Cases

Home / Powers and Duties / Recent Decisions on the Common Interest Doctrine and Multistate Cases
February 24, 2022 Powers and Duties
Share this

  • Emily Myers
    Antitrust Counsel and Chief Editor
    National Association of Attorneys General

State courts in Minnesota and Vermont have reached different conclusions about whether documents produced and exchanged by state attorneys general, working together on investigations, are protected by the common interest doctrine from release under state public records acts.

In each case, Energy Policy Advocates (EPA) made requests under the Minnesota and Vermont public records statutes for documents related to certain environmental litigation principally relating to climate change. The attorney general of each state declined to produce some of the requested documents, citing attorney work product doctrine and attorney-client privilege. In each case, EPA challenged the state’s failure to produce the documents.

In the Minnesota case, Energy Policy Advocates v. Ellison. 2021 Minn. App. LEXIS 224 (Minn. Ct. App. June 20, 2021), EPA sought a variety of documents, including documents from other state attorney general offices involving multistate position statements and multistate litigation. The attorney general’s office declined to produce them, citing several grounds, including attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine.  After a trial court upheld the attorney general’s refusal to produce the documents, EPA appealed. The Minnesota Court of Appeals partially reversed and remanded the case to the trial court.

The appellate court reviewed the Minnesota open records act and held that the act was “inapplicable to any data that are protected by the work product doctrine or the attorney-client privilege.” The court disagreed with EPA’s argument that the work product doctrine applied only to ongoing litigation and could not apply to litigation that was completed.

However, the court declined to apply the common interest doctrine to documents that had been shared with attorneys general from other states. The court held that the common interest doctrine is not recognized under Minnesota law, and declined to recognize it in this case, indicating that only the state supreme court could do so. The court held, “Because the common interest doctrine is not recognized in Minnesota, its application is not authorized. . . . Accordingly, the common interest doctrine is not an exception to the disclosure requirements of the [Minnesota open records act]. Thus, the district court erred by applying the common interest doctrine.”

The court also held that even if the common interest doctrine was recognized under Minnesota law, it applied only to attorney-client privilege material. The court held that “communication between a client’s attorney and another attorney is brought within the protection of the attorney-client privilege only if the communication between or among attorneys reveals the prior attorney-client communication.” The trial court held that the common interest doctrine did not apply to documents protected by the work product doctrine. The court concluded its analysis by holding that a formal agreement is not required for parties to invoke the common interest doctrine.

The appellate court remanded the case to the trial court for further review of the documents. The attorney general’s office has appealed the decision to the Minnesota supreme court, where the decision is pending.

The Vermont court reached the opposite conclusion about the application of the work product doctrine and the common interest doctrine to communications among attorneys general. In Energy Policy Advocates v. Attorney General’s Office, No. 173-4-20 (Vt. Super Ct.  Jul. 16, 2021), the attorney general’s office had entered into seven separate common interest agreements (CIAs), predominantly with other state attorneys general, involving seven separate matters, some of which have been litigated and resolved, and some of which did not result in litigation.

The court provided a useful summary of the decision-making process of the Vermont attorney general’s office when it enters into multistate investigations. When a line attorney is presented with a multistate matter, he or she notifies the supervisor. “The supervisor directs the request further up the office hierarchy, and a decision is made as to whether the issue is one which advances the interests of Vermont and whether the office has sufficient resources to devote to that particular matter in light of its other commitments.”  The court noted that “the Vermont Attorney General has very broad discretion to act as he or she sees fit in the interest of the State” and stated, “It is neither this court’s nor Requestor’s office to tell the AG how to exercise that discretion.”

 

Noting that litigation against large corporate entities is hard-fought, the court stated, “[P]ublic records requests may well be a part of such efforts, and that reality causes the AGO and others, most of whom have some form of public records act, to resort to the CIAs to guard against disadvantageous disclosure.”

The court examined in detail the work product privilege and its relationship to open records law. The court held, “Work product immunity in Vermont extends to materials prepared in anticipation of litigation, not merely those materials prepared after a lawsuit has been filed, and it continues following the termination of the litigation.” Regarding application of the common interest doctrine to work product materials, the court held, “Thus, the common interest doctrine is not necessary to the assertion of work product immunity. Similarly, reducing common interests to writing, such as in the disputed CIAs, is not necessary to an assertion of work product immunity.”

The court determined that it could apply the work product privilege in determining whether the documents at issue were protected from disclosure. The court concluded that the CIAs themselves were not work product, because they “do not in any appreciable way reveal legal strategy, legal opinions, or any other information sensitive to the signatories’ legal interests other than the identification of the common interest.” All other withheld documents were deemed to be work product.

The court also addressed plaintiff’s argument that the matters at issue were political rather than legal activity, and thus not subject to any privileges. While acknowledging that multistate litigation can be a vehicle for policy changes, the court held, “Neither work product immunity nor Exemption 4 [to the Vermont public records law] is predicated on any legal (immune) versus political (accessible) dichotomy. What matters under work product immunity is that reasonably anticipated, if not currently ongoing, litigation is at issue (or was at the time of the communication), and the materials sought relate to that litigation.”

Finally, the court addressed plaintiff’s argument that the requested documents involved litigation by third parties to which the Vermont attorney general’s office is not involved. The court noted that the attorney general’s office had provided an affidavit indicating that all the documents did relate to matters in which the office was, or was considering becoming, involved. This was sufficient to prevent the court from “look[ing] behind the AGO’s representations to determine whether any anticipated litigation is or was anticipated enough.”

Related Posts

Related Posts

powers and duties, attorney general powers

Recent Attorney General Powers and Duties Cases—In Brief | Late 2024

powers and duties, attorney general powers

Recent Attorney General Powers and Duties Cases — In Brief | Early 2025

Connect with NAAG and the Attorney General Community

Create a NAAG account to subscribe to our newsletters or mailing lists.

Create Account
Subscribe
Marble columns and the top of a federal building

scroll to filters

White Logo for the National Association of Attorneys General

1850 M Street NW
12th floor
Washington, DC 20036

TEL 202-326-6000
EMAIL 

Youtube
  • Issues
    • Issues
      • Anticorruption
      • Antitrust
      • Bankruptcy
      • Charities
      • Civil Law
    • Issues
      • Consumer Protection
      • Criminal Law
      • Cyber and Technology
      • Disaster Preparedness & Response
      • Elder Justice
    • Issues
      • Ethics
      • Human Trafficking
      • Medicaid Fraud
      • Opioids
      • Powers & Duties
    • Issues
      • Public Health
      • The U.S. Supreme Court
      • Tobacco
      • Veterans & Military
  • Our Work
    • Training & Research
    • Centers
      • Center for Consumer Protection
      • Center for Supreme Court Advocacy
      • Center for Tobacco & Public Health
    • Committees
    • Initiatives
      • Presidential Initiative
      • Strategic Partnerships
      • International Fellows
      • COVID-19
    • Bankruptcy
    • Policy & Advocacy
  • Events & Training
    • Event Calendar
    • Attorney General Symposium
    • Presidential Summit
    • Capital Forum
    • Region Meetings
    • CLE Credit
    • NAAG Trainings
    • Online Learning
    • NAMFCU Trainings
    • NAAG Faculty
  • News & Resources
    • Attorney General Journal
    • Reports & Publications
    • Newsroom
    • NAAG Policy Letters
    • Podcasts
    • Online Learning
    • Research & Data
    • Member Directory
  • Attorneys General
    • What Attorneys General Do
    • Who is my Attorney General?
    • Attorneys General Office 101
    • Research & Data
    • Awards & Recognition
    • Careers in Attorney General Offices
    • Careers in Medicaid Fraud Control Units
  • About NAAG
    • NAAG Staff
    • NAAG Leadership
    • NAAG Member Services
    • NAAG Regions
    • NAAG FAQs
    • SAGE
    • NAMFCU
    • Newsroom
    • Careers at NAAG
  • Find my AG
  • About NAMFCU
    • About the Medicaid Fraud Control Units
    • Reporting Fraud and Abuse
    • MFCU Member Hub
    • Careers with a MFCU
  • Contact Us
  • Find My AG
  • Consumer Complaints
  • Member Benefits
  • Contact Us
  • Accessibility Statement
  • Privacy & Cookies Notice
  • Sitemap
  • Member Login

About the National Association of Attorneys General

As the nonpartisan national forum for America's state and territory attorneys general and their staff, NAAG provides collaboration, insight, and expertise to empower and champion America's attorneys general.
Learn More

© 2025 Copyright National Association of Attorneys General

Website by Yoko Co

Internal Feedback / Report an Error

Request an Update / Report an Error

The change you are requesting will be linked to this page. The URL for the page will be included in a hidden field when the form is submitted.
Please enter your change or describe your request. Be sure to reference where the error appears on the page and what needs to be done specifically.
Upload any files that need to be linked to this page. PDF only. Submit another request if you have more than five files to upload.
Drop files here or
Accepted file types: pdf, docx, xls, Max. file size: 128 MB, Max. files: 5.

    Who is requesting this change?(Required)

    Scroll To Top

    Insert/edit link

    Enter the destination URL

    Or link to existing content

      No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.
        To provide you more clarity about how we collect, store and use personal information, and your rights to control that information, we have updated our privacy policy, which also explains how we use cookies. You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.I Agree