In Re USA Waste Management Resources, L.L.C.
2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 9152
| Tex. App. | 2012Background
- Relator USA Waste Management Resources, L.L.C. filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the Fourteenth Court of Appeals to compel protection for a July 14, 2010 conversation between Jennings and Waste Management's outside counsel Clark.
- The communications were part of an investigation into Armstrong's threats and preceded Jennings's deposition in the Armstrong lawsuit; Waste Management claimed the conversations were privileged attorney-client communications.
- The trial court denied Waste Management's motion for protection, and Waste Management sought mandamus relief in this proceeding.
- Jennings responded; Waste Management submitted a reply; the court analyzed the merits of the attorney-client privilege and potential crime-fraud exceptions.
- The court held that Waste Management made a prima facie showing of privilege for the July 14, 2010 conversation, and Jennings did not rebut with evidence sufficient to defeat the privilege.
- The court concluded that the crime/fraud exception did not apply and conditionally granted the mandamus relief, directing the trial court to grant protection and vacate its denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the July 14, 2010 Jennings-Clark conversation protected by attorney-client privilege? | Waste Management: conversation was confidential and for obtaining legal services. | Jennings: privilege does not apply; not enough evidence of confidential legal services. | Yes; privilege applies; trial court abused discretion. |
| Does the crime/fraud exception defeat the privilege here? | Waste Management asserts no crime/fraud exception as alleged. | Jennings claims potential suborning of perjury; argues exception may apply. | No; crime/fraud exception not established. |
| Is mandamus relief appropriate to compel protection of the communications? | Relator shows trial court abused discretion by denying protection. | Respondent argues remedy by appeal is adequate; mandamus inappropriate. | Yes; mandamus is proper; relief conditioned on trial court granting protection. |
Key Cases Cited
- Huie v. DeShazo, 922 S.W.2d 920 (Tex. 1996) (attorney-client privilege scope and confidentiality guidance)
- In re E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 136 S.W.3d 218 (Tex. 2004) (subject matter test for corporate privilege applicability)
- In re Valero Energy Corp., 973 S.W.2d 453 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998) (prima facie standard for privilege proof)
- In re Monsanto Co., 998 S.W.2d 917 (Tex. App.—Waco 1999) (crime-fraud considerations in privilege analysis)
- Arkla, Inc. v. Harris, 846 S.W.2d 623 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1993) (crime/fraud exception standard and burden on movant)
- Granada Corp. v. Hon. First Court of Appeals, 844 S.W.2d 223 (Tex. 1992) (necessity of prima facie showing for crime/fraud nexus)