Waste Management of Washington, Inc. v. Kattler
776 F.3d 336
5th Cir.2015Background
- WM sued Kattler for misappropriating confidential information and for violating his employment agreement by joining Emerald.
- A TRO and then a preliminary injunction required Kattler to produce images of all personal electronic devices, with privilege concerns raised.
- The district court broadened 'personal devices' to include most of Kattler’s devices, potentially implicating attorney-client privilege.
- WM sought show-cause sanctions for Kattler’s and Moore’s conduct, leading to a January 22, 2013 hearing.
- At the hearing, Moore argued iPad content was privileged and that the iPad should not be produced; the court ordered production to WM.
- Kattler later recalled owning a SanDisk thumb drive; Moore withdrew as counsel, and WM renewed its contempt motion, leading to a March 4 hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Moore adequately noticed for contempt at the second show-cause hearing? | Moore faced contempt via show-cause motion naming Kattler, not Moore. | Moore relied on the pleadings showing potential contempt and deserved notice. | Vacated as to Moore; inadequate notice invalidates contempt against him. |
| Did Moore aid or abet deception about the SanDisk drive? | Moore knew or should have known of the drive and facilitated deception. | Kattler misled Moore; Moore’s knowledge was lacking, and immediate corrective action occurred. | Abuse of discretion to hold Moore in contempt for the SanDisk issue. |
| Was Moore required to produce the iPad image and/or device despite attorney-client privilege? | The court’s order compelled production to WM without privilege considerations. | Privilege barred production; Maness rule allowed resistance without contempt when disclosure causes irreparable injury. | Moore’s failure to produce the iPad image was excusable; privilege defense valid. |
| Did the district court err in finding Moore in contempt based on the iPad/privilege issues? | Moore violated clear and specific orders; his conduct warranted contempt. | Confusion about the scope of the order and privilege concerns negated a clear violation. | Contempt vacated; district court abused discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- American Airlines, Inc. v. Allied Pilots Ass’n, 228 F.3d 574 (5th Cir. 2000) (notice with show-cause order and parties named is essential for contempt sanctions)
- Alizadeh v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 910 F.2d 234 (5th Cir. 1990) (joint pretrial orders and pleadings can’t surprise when fees are at issue)
- Ibarra v. Baker, 338 F. App’x 457 (5th Cir. 2009) (immediate corrective action when client’s conduct is revealed; not aiding fraud)
- In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 601 F.2d 162 (5th Cir. 1979) (premised on general principle of secrecy in grand jury; relevance to privilege and disclosure)
- Maness v. Meyers, 419 U.S. 449 (Supreme Court, 1975) (protects against compelled disclosure of information that would cause irreparable injury; privilege contexts)