In In re Grand Jury Subpoena Dated March 20, 2013, No. 13-Mc-189 (Patt I) (S.D.N.Y. July 2, 2014), the district court held that waiting more than two weeks to take action to rectify the unauthorized disclosure of privileged information waived the privilege.  In this grand jury proceeding, the lawyer for the Subject of the grand jury proceeding engaged an investigator to conduct interviews to further the lawyer’s representation of Subject.  The court held that, although the Subject paid the investigator, the investigator was engaged and supervised by the lawyer and was, therefore, an agent of counsel and within the attorney-client privilege.  Federal agents subpoenaed the investigator’s testimony, confronted the investigator in her home, and asked her questions regarding meetings during which the lawyer and Subject allegedly attempted to obtain false statements from a third party.  The investigator told the agents about these meetings and she handed over her file relating to her work for Subject.  The investigator later told the lawyer that she had given her file to the federal agents.  Although the lawyer was “stunned” to learn of the disclosures, he waited over two weeks before contacting the government about the disclosures.  The lawyer then withdrew from the representation and informed the government that new counsel would file a motion to quash.  Prosecutors issued a second subpoena for the investigator, and then reached a tentative deal with Subject to narrow the scope of investigator’s testimony so that  it would not elicit privileged information.  The deal fell apart and Subject’s new attorney waited three weeks before filing a motion to quash the subpoena.  The court held that the two and three week delays were not sufficiently prompt to save any privilege that might otherwise exist.  “These delays are unacceptable given the perceived gravity of Investigator’s disclosures.  Courts have held that twelve days, even six days, are too long to wait to avoid waiving privilege.”