In Menasha Corp. v. U.S. Department of Justice, 707 F.3d 846 (7th Cir. 2013) (No. 12-1720), the court held that, for the purposes of the work product doctrine, competing sections of the Department of Justice should be treated as a single party, and each may disclose work product to the other without waiving the work product protection. Plaintiffs (“Menasha”) are defendants in a CERCLA action brought against them by the United States on behalf of the EPA and the Department of the Interior. Shortly after filing the action, the DOJ presented to the district court a proposed consent decree that included a settlement on behalf of the EPA and the Corps of Engineers, agencies which may have contributed to the pollution at the site. The team of lawyers in the DOJ’s Natural Resources Division was drawn from two of the Division’s sections: the Environmental Enforcement Section, which represents the United States in suits to enforce environmental laws, and the Environmental Defense Section, which defends the United States from suits to enforce those laws. Suspicious of the bona fides of the negotiations within the DOJ, Menasha filed this FOIA action, seeking production of internal DOJ memoranda relating to the negotiations. In response to DOJ’s assertion of the work product protection with respect to 440 documents, Menasha argued that the DOJ had waived any protection by sharing the documents between the two sets of lawyers, which had adverse interests for the purposes of the negotiations. The trial court agreed with Menasha, but the federal appellate court reversed. The appellate court ruled that where, as here, the United States is a single party in litigation, it should be treated as a single party for the purposes of the work product protection. Just as a corporate general counsel may need to resolve competing interests within a corporation, the DOJ must resolve competing interests within the DOJ. In neither case is there disclosure to an “adversary” that results in waiver of the protection. The court noted that this was not a case in which independent federal agencies authorized to sue in their own names were opposing parties in litigation.