Exxon Mobil Corporation v. Clarence Hill
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 8495
| 5th Cir. | 2014Background
- Exxon Mobil negotiated with ITCO over cleaning and storing NORM-containing tubulars.
- Booher tested the device; Guidry received results in a confidential report with four tables.
- Stein drafted advised response and a memo (Stein Memo) dated July 22, 1988.
- ITCO sought data; Exxon Mobil advised disclosure strategy and protective disclaimers.
- Exxon Mobil produced the Stein Memo inadvertently in 2008; it was later challenged as privileged in federal court; district court ruled against privilege, leading to dismissal of Exxon Mobil's intervention.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Stein Memo is privileged under Louisiana law | Exxon Mobil asserts Stein Memo was for legal advice in contract negotiations | Hill contends the memo is primarily business data, not legal advice | Stein Memo is privileged; not mere business data. |
| Standard of review for privilege ruling | Exxon Mobil contends de novo review is appropriate due to legal error | Hill argues standard should be clear-error review | Court would review for clear error but reverses regardless. |
| Character of Stein Memo as legal vs. business advice | Exxon Mobil emphasizes legal context and in-house counsel role | Hill emphasizes factual/commercial purpose | Memo constitutes legal advice relevant to fiduciary privilege. |
| Effect of context of negotiations on privilege scope | Exxon Mobil argues negotiation context supports legal privilege | Hill contends context does not override business-use aspects | Context favors treating the memo as attorney-client privileged. |
Key Cases Cited
- U.S. Gypsum Co. v. United States, 333 U.S. 364 (Supreme Court 1948) (establishes strong privacy of attorney-client communications in privilege analysis)
- United States v. Seale, 600 F.3d 473 (5th Cir. 2010) (confirms standard handling of privilege as fact-specific in some contexts)
- United States v. McFerrin, 570 F.3d 672 (5th Cir. 2009) (arguments on deference to privilege determinations under legal error framing)
- State v. Montgomery, 499 So.2d 709 (La. App. 3d Cir. 1986) (some communications not privileged when adviser not providing client-focused legal advice)