X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS: In the suit underlying this petition for mandamus, nearly 400 plaintiffs sued E.I. DuPont de Nemours and over 100 other defendants for alleged asbestos-related injuries from 1935 to the present. In response to the plaintiffs’ discovery request, DuPont asserted claims of attorney-client and/or work product privilege with respect to 607 documents. HOLDING: The court conditionally grants DuPont’s petition for mandamus relief from the trial court ruling insofar as the ruling denied DuPont’s privilege claim without conducting an in camera review with respect to the documents containing both “DuPont Legal” and non-”DuPont Legal” names. Three discrete categories of documents are in dispute. First, there are the documents which have only “DuPont Legal” names associated with them. The trial court ordered an in camera review of these 76 documents. Second, there are those documents that have both “DuPont Legal” and other names associated with them. The trial court denied DuPont’s claim of privilege with respect to these documents without ordering an in camera review. Finally, there are those documents which do not have any “DuPont Legal” name associated with them. The trial court also rejected DuPont’s claim of privilege concerning these documents. The court concludes that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sustaining DuPont’s privilege claims with respect to the first category of documents. The log submitted by DuPont combined with Connor’s affidavit clearly make a prima facie case that those documents with only “DuPont Legal” names associated with them are covered by the attorney-client and/or work product privileges. Consequently, the trial court correctly determined that DuPont was entitled to at least an in camera review of those documents. The court also concludes that DuPont established a prima facie case of privilege with respect to the second category of documents, which contained both “DuPont Legal” and other names. Thus, the court finds that the trial court erroneously rejected DuPont’s privilege claim as applied to these documents without at least subjecting them to an in camera review. There is no presumption that documents are privileged, and there is no presumption that a party listed on the privilege log is an authorized person under the rule governing the privilege. Cigna Corp. v. Spears, 838 S.W.2d 561 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1992, orig. proceeding). Nevertheless, Walter Connor, a DuPont paralegal, provided sufficient indication of the relationship between the “DuPont Legal” and the non-”DuPont Legal” persons on the privilege log to establish a prima facie case of privilege. In his description of the allegedly privileged documents, Connor identified the non-”DuPont Legal” persons on the privilege log as authorized parties for purposes of attorney-client and/or work product privilege. Connor swore that the documents allegedly privileged as attorney-client materials “indicate a lawyer or representative of a lawyer engaging in communication . . . or performing a requested task . . . for a client or representative of a client.” The implication of this statement is that, whatever the relationship between the “DuPont Legal” and the non-”Dupont Legal” parties listed on the privilege log, it was a relationship within the scope of the attorney-client and/or work product privilege. In light of the tests for demonstrating attorney-client and work product privilege and the fact that the hundreds of documents at issue span more than 60 years, this statement combined with the log summarizing each document is sufficient to establish at least a prima facie case of privilege that is then subject to in camera review. Because DuPont has established a prima facie case of privilege as to the second category of documents, which bear both “DuPont Legal” and non-”DuPont Legal” designations, the court concludes that it was entitled to an in camera review before being required to produce these documents. Finally, the court agrees with the trial court that DuPont has not established a prima facie case of privilege with respect to the third category of documents containing no “DuPont Legal” names. Connor’s affidavit offers no evidence to justify privilege assertions concerning these documents. Connor’s affidavit attested to the privileged nature of “[a]ll the documents on the DuPont-Brignac privilege log with”DuPont Legal’ names associated with a claim of attorney-client privilege” and “[a]ll the documents on the DuPont-Brignac privilege log with”DuPont Legal’ names associated with a claim of work product privilege.” The affidavit was silent as to any claim of privilege regarding the documents that do not bear a “Dupont Legal” name. The court agrees with the appeals court that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that DuPont failed to make a prima facie case of privilege with respect to those documents containing no “Dupont Legal” names. In Re: Monsanto Co., 998 S.W.2d 917 (Tex. App.-Waco 1999, orig. proceeding), stands only for the proposition that the party seeking discovery must specify its challenges to the privilege log after the party asserting privilege claims has made a prima facie case. The discovery rules provide that any party may request a hearing on a claim of privilege and the party asserting the privilege must present any evidence necessary to support the privilege. Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.4(a). This provision does not contain a requirement that the party seeking discovery specify their rationale for objecting to each document before requesting a hearing. OPINION: Per curiam.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.