In a closely watched ERISA case, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado has issued an order affirming the Magistrate Judge’s ruling in Harrison v. Envision Management Holding, Inc. Board of Directors et al (Case No. 21-cv-00304), concerning the discoverability of Department of Labor (“DOL”) interview reports plaintiffs had obtained under a common interest agreement.  This decision illustrates the limited scope of the common interest doctrine, particularly in cases involving coordination between private plaintiffs and the DOL.

As discussed in our earlier post, the plaintiffs in Harrison alleged ERISA violations related to an ESOP transaction and relied on a common interest agreement with the DOL to obtain DOL investigative materials, including interview reports. The Magistrate Judge ruled that no common legal interest existed between the plaintiffs and the DOL and recommended plaintiffs be required to produce the documents they had received from the DOL.

The District Court affirmed this ruling, concluding that the plaintiffs and the DOL lacked a shared legal strategy and ordering the production of the DOL interview reports within five days.  The District Court also denied the plaintiffs’ request for a stay to allow them to seek a writ of mandamus in the 10th Circuit, effectively closing the door on further challenges at this stage and reinforcing the Magistrate Judge’s findings. The court stood firmly behind the Magistrate Judge’s “well-reasoned opinion,” highlighting the narrow application of the common interest doctrine and rejecting the plaintiffs’ arguments as insufficiently supported.

The District Court also directed criticism at the DOL for failing to file an objection to the Magistrate Judge’s ruling. Despite previously submitting a brief on the common interest issue before the Magistrate Judge, the DOL chose not to object to the ruling. The court described this silence as both dispositive and “somewhat telling,” given that the disputed work product belonged to the DOL. Additionally, the court noted that the plaintiffs had made no argument that they had standing to object on the DOL’s behalf. As we noted in our prior post, the Harrison ruling underscores the importance of early discovery efforts to uncover potential coordination between plaintiffs and the DOL.