Hewes v. Langston

848 So. 2d 800 (Miss. 2003) · Supreme Court of Mississippi · June 19, 2003

Summary

The Mississippi Supreme Court reviewed an interlocutory appeal concerning orders compelling production of documents claimed to be protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. The court held that the crime-fraud exception did not apply, determined that the disputed materials were privileged, and reversed the orders compelling production. The case was remanded for further proceedings and the court reiterated that privilege disputes should be resolved item by item.

Holdings

  1. A party seeking disclosure need only present a factual basis sufficient to support a reasonable person's good-faith belief that an in camera review may reveal the applicability of the crime-fraud exception. Langston met that lower threshold, so the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by reviewing the documents in camera.
  2. The crime-fraud exception did not apply because Langston failed to prove that a crime or fraud actually occurred and the documents did not support her claim that Hewes conspired with Miller to access her telephone records.
  3. The challenged documents were protected by the attorney-client privilege, the common-interest privilege, or the work product doctrine, and therefore were not discoverable.
  4. When a party objects to discovery of specific documents on privilege grounds, the trial court must consider and rule on each document or item individually and state the rule or exception supporting its decision.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the circuit court erred by ordering production of 29 document items claimed to be protected by the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine.
  2. Whether the circuit court properly conducted an in camera review under the crime-fraud exception.
  3. Whether the circuit court made sufficient item-specific findings of fact and conclusions of law to permit appellate review.
  4. Whether the challenged documents were protected by the attorney-client privilege, the common-interest privilege, or the work product doctrine.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded

Cases Cited (16)

  • United States v. Neal, 27 F.3d 1035, 1048 (5th Cir. 1994)(followed)
  • Haynes v. Anderson, 597 So. 2d 615, 617, 619-20 (Miss. 1992)(followed)
  • In re Knapp, 536 So. 2d 1330, 1333 (Miss. 1988)(followed)
  • Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 389, 400-02 (1981)(followed)
  • United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 562, 572 (1989)(followed)
  • Barnes v. State, 460 So. 2d 126, 131 (Miss. 1984)(followed)
  • Dunn v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 927 F.2d 869, 875 (5th Cir. 1991)(followed)
  • Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 510-11 (1947)(followed)
  • Shields v. Sturm, Ruger & Co., 864 F.2d 379, 382 (5th Cir. 1989)(followed)
  • In re International Systems & Controls Corp. Securities Litigation, 693 F.2d 1235, 1242 (5th Cir. 1982)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 16.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…