Moss v. Parr Waddoups Brown Gee & Loveless
2012 UT 42
| Utah | 2012Background
- Plaintiffs sue Parr Brown and its attorneys for their role in executing civil discovery orders that authorized entry into plaintiffs' home and seizure of electronic files.
- District court granted judgment on the pleadings; court of appeals affirmed.
- This court granted certiorari to address res judicata and the judicial proceedings privilege as applied to attorney conduct.
- Tomed had sought an Order for Immediate Discovery to preserve evidence; Supplemental Order allowed entry and seizure.
- Yanaki and Moss later sued for torts including abuse of process, invasion of privacy, trespass, and other claims arising from the Order execution.
- Lower courts held that res judicata barred the claims and that the privilege protected attorney conduct; this Court affirms on alternate grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata bars the claims | Yanaki and Moss argue res judicata precludes collateral attack | Defendants contend prior judgment precludes claims | No, res judicata does not bar the claims. |
| Whether the judicial proceedings privilege extends to attorney conduct | Privilege should be limited to statements during proceedings | Privilege should cover attorney conduct in aiding litigation | Yes, privilege extends to attorney conduct within the scope of representation. |
| Whether the privilege bars all tort claims against the attorneys | Claims overcome privilege due to alleged improper motives | Attorneys acted within scope and for client’s interests | Privilege bars all claims in this case. |
Key Cases Cited
- Beesley v. Hansen, 286 P.2d 1057 (Utah 1955) (premised broad public policy for privilege in judicial proceedings)
- Pratt v. Nelson, 164 P.3d 366 (Utah 2007) (privilege extends to statements and conduct in litigation context)
- Bennett v. Jones, Waldo, Holbrook & McDonough, 70 P.3d 17 (Utah 2003) (extends privilege to broader range of litigation-related conduct)
- Loigman v. Twp. Comm. of Middletown, 889 A.2d 426 (N.J. 2006) (privilege supports wide protection for attorney actions in judicial process)
- Taylor v. McNichols, 243 P.3d 642 (Idaho 2010) ( Idaho confirms extension of privilege to attorney conduct in litigation)