In In re Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litigation, No. 13-MD-2437 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 9, 2014), the district court held that a corporate antitrust policy that was regularly disseminated within a company for training purposes was not protected by the attorney-client privilege.  In this antitrust case, plaintiffs requested defendant CertainTeed to produce its internal policies, practices and guidelines concerning United States antitrust laws.  Defendant asserted that its internal compliance policies were privileged.  Defendant’s antitrust compliance policy was drafted by outside and in-house counsel; it was distributed widely within the company for compliance training purposes; however, it was not distributed outside of the company.  Defendant argued that the policy was a communication from company lawyers to company personnel with a need to know the legal advice provided in the document.  The court disagreed, and held that the internal policy was not privileged.  The court noted that “[n]o court has yet held that a corporate policy of lawfulness is protected from discovery as privileged.  Moreover, there is no evidence that [Defendant] would have refrained from creating the policy absent privilege.”  The court explained that, although the communications between counsel and company executives leading up to the adoption of the policy were privileged, the policy itself was not.  Although the policy is based on legal advice, it is primarily a business instructional guide or reference that contains general advice, not advice specific to any set of actual facts.