Concerned about a proper trial, the safety of the accused and the constitutional rights of the accused, the court – sua sponte – ordered the defense lawyer to submit his JDA proposal to the court for consideration in the form of reflections. The Tribunal found that, in accordance with its supervisory powers, it had considerable powers to monitor its own cases to ensure that justice was in conformity with justice. To support this point, the court said the defendants learned it the hard way at United States v. Krug.  A written JDA was concluded in Krug by the co-defendants and their lawyers. After the implementation of the agreement, the co-defendants held a corridor debate on topics related to their case. The court ruled that the corridor talks were not protected by the JDA and could be used as evidence against them during the trial. In Smith v. Allstate Insurance Co., no. 11-165 (W.D.
Pa. Nov. 8, 2012), the defendant Allstate travelled to Limine to prevent the Applicant from using privilege documents accidentally created at the hearing. Allstate stated that there was an agreement with the Claimant that it would not use the documents, but the Claimant refused any agreement, arguing that there had been a waiver. The parties informed the case, but “[t]he authors, neither Allstate in their application nor the applicant in its response refer to Federal Rule of Evidence 502(b) or discuss its factors, as they relate to the present case. Therefore, some information that would help to solve this problem is not before the Court of Justice. Although the Tribunal nevertheless relied on the factors of FRE 502(b) and concluded that there was no waiver, this expertise is remarkable in that this court is only one of many people who found that, although FRE 502 has been in force since September 2009, counsel continues to ignore it. There is no rule requiring the parties of a JDA to recall their agreement in writing; In fact, many JDAs are spoken. However, participants who insist on oral agreements should have considered the associated risk. That is, there is no risk that the court will decide on a JDA.
 In addition, the court noted that “the mere fact that the communications took place between co-accused who had adhered to a common defence agreement was no longer sufficient to protect the statements from disclosure.” While this is good news, I think the case also shows how important it is to clarify the relationship with the other agency at an early stage of the process and, if possible, to establish the relationship in a written agreement. . . .