in Re: Fisher & Paykel Appliances, Inc., 420 S.W.3d 842

Wrongful-death and products-liability suit: Webb family alleges Fisher & Paykel dryer defect caused a house fire and Rosemary Webb’s death.
Plaintiffs requested "all correspondence" from Fisher & Paykel to any governmental agency about the occurrence; Fisher & Paykel objected asserting multiple privileges and later identified three CPSC reports.
Fisher & Paykel initially claimed a self-critical analysis privilege, later invoked trade secret, attorney work-product, and cited Rule 502; it tendered the three reports for in camera review after the court ordered production of "all responsive documents."
The trial court reviewed the documents in camera, ordered production to plaintiffs, and Fisher & Paykel filed mandamus seeking to overturn that order.
On mandamus review the court considered (1) whether Fisher & Paykel waived non-responsiveness, (2) whether a self-critical analysis privilege exists under Texas law or Rule 502, and (3) whether attorney work-product or selective-waiver principles prevented disclosure.
Court denied mandamus: found non-responsiveness argument waived, declined to recognize a Texas common-law self-critical-analysis privilege or Rule 502 protection here, and rejected selective-waiver/work-product protection for documents prepared for mandatory regulator reporting.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Responsiveness of CPSC reports to RFP	Request seeks agency correspondence about the occurrence; reports are responsive	Only ~13 lines of 413 pages are responsive; reports not related to occurrence	Defendant waived responsiveness objection by not timely asserting it; court rightly ordered production
Existence of a self-critical analysis privilege	N/A (plfs seek production)	Fisher & Paykel: common-law self-critical privilege should protect reports to CPSC	No statutory or Texas common-law self-critical-analysis privilege; Rule 502 inapplicable here
Rule 502 protection for mandatory reports	N/A	Fisher & Paykel: Rule 502 protects reports required by law from disclosure	Rule 502 applies only if the law granting the reporting requirement also grants a privilege to the reporter; CPSC statute does not grant reporter privilege, so Rule 502 does not apply
Attorney work-product / selective waiver from disclosure to CPSC	N/A	Fisher & Paykel: documents prepared/compiled by counsel are work product and selective waiver should preserve privilege despite disclosure to regulator	No waiver from asserting work product; but documents prepared specifically for mandatory regulatory reports or disclosed to an adverse government regulator are not protected; selective waiver doctrine not adopted to bar disclosure here

In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (mandamus standard: abuse of discretion and no adequate appellate remedy)
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (no discretion to misstate law; mandamus standards)
In re Deere & Co., 299 S.W.3d 819 (Tex. 2009) (scope of overly broad discovery in products-liability cases)
Diversified Indus. v. Meredith, 572 F.2d 596 (8th Cir. 1977) (selective-waiver doctrine — non-waiver where documents were produced to government)
Permian Corp. v. United States, 665 F.2d 1214 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (rejecting selective waiver; client cannot selectively waive privilege to disadvantage private parties)
In re Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp., 293 F.3d 289 (6th Cir. 2002) (rejecting selective waiver for attorney-client and work-product privileges)
In re Qwest Commc’ns Int’l Inc., 450 F.3d 1179 (10th Cir. 2006) (rejecting selective waiver as inconsistent with work-product purpose)
In re EchoStar Commc’ns Corp., 448 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (subject-matter waiver where disclosure to government defeats selective privilege)