relating to information shared in joint defense communications by one party to such communications will not constitute a waiver by any other party to such communications.” Western Fuels Ass’n Inc. v. Burlington Northern R.R. Co., 102 F.R.D. 201, 203 (D.Wyo.1984). The court reasoned that this rule was necessary “to assure joint defense efforts are not inhibited or even precluded by the fear that a party to joint defense communications may subsequently unilaterally waive the privileges of all participants, either purposefully in an effort to exonerate himself or inadvertently.” Id. This hol D. 21, 29 (N.D.Ill.1980), later proceeding sub nom., Ohio-Sealy Mattress Mfg. Co. v. Sealy, Inc., 669 F.2d 490 (7th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1002, 104 S.Ct. 509, 78 L.Ed.2d 698 (1983) (<HOLDING>). The Court is aware of only one decision
holding that the district court properly allowed the defendant who asserted the disputed defense as a contested issue of law in the joint pretrial order to pursue the defense despite the defendants failure to comply with rule 8c holding that defendants failure to assert the defense in any pretrial motions did not waive defendants limitations defense because the assertion of a limitations defense in the answer preserved defendants right to raise the defense both during the first trial and before the second holding that where codefendants conducted a joint defense that provided a benefit to each defendant the joint services represented fair consideration for the payment of reasonable compensation regardless of which defendant paid the bill holding that the government did not waive an affirmative defense not pleaded in the answer because it raised the defense at a pragmatically sufficient time by listing the defense in the joint pretrial order holding in a class action derivative suit that the joint defense privilege cannot be waived without the consent of all the parties to the defense except in the situation where one of the joint defendants becomes an adverse party in a litigation