3M Co. v. Engle
328 S.W.3d 184
| Ky. | 2010Background
- Coal miners with CWP sue 3M and American Optical alleging defective respirators caused injury.
- Claims are governed by a one-year statute of limitations (KRS 413.140(1)(a)).
- Plaintiffs argue accrual occurred when they learned of a possible connection, via discovery rule; they affidavited filing within a year of attorney notice.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment; the trial court found a genuine issue of material fact as to accrual timing.
- Defendants sought to depose plaintiffs’ attorney Holliday to learn when discussions about a possible connection occurred.
- Plaintiffs obtained a protective order but were subject to a writ of prohibition to prevent Holliday’s deposition; Court of Appeals granted the writ; Kentucky Supreme Court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court of Appeals erred in issuing the writ | Plaintiffs contend the deposition implicates privileged attorney-client communications. | Defendants contend waiver and necessity of discovery justify deposition. | Writ improper; waiver defeats privilege; Court of Appeals erred. |
| Whether the trial court erred in ordering Holliday’s deposition | Information sought is privileged and not crucial; deposition unnecessary. | McMurry factors show relevance, lack of alternative methods, and crucial need. | Deposition allowed; information relevant, not privileged, and crucial to case preparation. |
| Whether plaintiffs waived the attorney-client privilege | Privilege should protect communications between clients and Holliday. | Implied waiver due to views/positions placing communications at issue. | Waiver found; privilege not controlling for these disclosures. |
Key Cases Cited
- McMurry v. Eckert, 833 S.W.2d 828 (Ky. 1992) (deposition of opposing counsel requires show of relevance, non-privilege, no other means, crucial to case)
- Hoskins v. Maricle, 150 S.W.3d 1 (Ky. 2004) (standard for extraordinary writs and jurisdictional concerns)
- Bender v. Eaton, 343 S.W.2d 799 (Ky. 1961) (great injustice/irreparable injury considerations for writs; exploratory guidance)
- Grange Mut. Ins. Co. v. Trude, 151 S.W.3d 803 (Ky. 2004) (irreparable injury concept and public policy considerations in relief decisions)
- Lipsteuer v. CSX Transp., Inc., 37 S.W.3d 732 (Ky. 2000) (limitation on discovery and evidentiary considerations in Kentucky law)