issued a press release when this occurred, claiming that “[t]aken as a whole — and not selectively out of context — these documents more than demonstrate that our company responsibly researched, manufactures and markets its products to adult smokers.” Ex. to Def.’s Mem. of Law, Tab F. In May 1998, State v. Philip Morris settled. Incorporated in the consent judgment was a provision permitting the plaintiffs to seek court approval for public disclosure of those documents that were subject to a protective order, over which the defendants had asserted a privilege but for which no privilege was found to exist. The plaintiffs sought said approval, and the court initially granted it. * The defendants opposed the order, and subsequently secured a stay . of Am., 91 F.R.D. 84, 90 (E.D.N.Y.1981) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, nothing in New York case law
holding that voluntary testimony before a grand jury did not waive the privilege at trial because it is settled that a waiver of the fifth amendment privilege is limited to the particular proceeding in which the waiver occurs holding that the burden of proof lies on the party asserting the protection of the work product doctrine holding that disclosure to outside accountants did not waive the work product privilege since the accountants are not considered a conduit to a potential adversary holding that when a party discloses an item to an adversary even in the context of settlement a waiver of the work product privilege is effected holding declaration or affidavit must support work product claim for documents listed solely as work product on privilege log