notes. Steinhardt, 9 F.3d at 232. During the SEC’s preliminary investigation of the allegations underlying the class action, the defendants prepared and furnished to the SEC a memorandum and exhibits that addressed some of the SEC’s questions. Id. When the private plaintiffs in the class action sought production of that memo in discovery, defendants asserted work product protection. Id. The Second Circuit held that the defendants had waived any work product protection when they voluntarily shared their memo with the SEC, an adversary. Id. at 235 (“Once a party allows an adversary to share the otherwise privileged thought processes of counsel, the need for privilege disappears.”); accord In re Refco Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 07 MDL 1902(JSR), 2012 WL 678139, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 28, 2012) (<HOLDING>). In dicta, however, the Court in Steinhardt
holding defendants waived work product protection over emails that defense counsel sent to independent thirdparty witness with whom defendants did not share common interest holding work product protection waived where company shared litigation strategy against plaintiff with nonparty independent contractor holding that a plaintiff who had asserted no claim against a thirdparty defendant lacked standing to complain of the courts action with regard to the thirdparty defendant holding that rookerfeldman did not bar the plaintiffs federal action where a pennsylvania state court had previously dismissed the plaintiffs petition for review of an agencys decision for failure to comply with the pennsylvania rules of appellate procedure since the extent of the plaintiffs compliance with those rules had no bearing on the merits of the plaintiffs constitutional claims holding privilege waived where plaintiffs counsel shared legal strategy with a thirdparty witness against whom plaintiffs had tolled claims