In re E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company

Summary

The Supreme Court of Texas conditionally granted mandamus relief concerning E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Company’s claims of attorney-client and work-product privilege over documents withheld in asbestos litigation. The court held that DuPont made a prima facie showing of privilege for documents involving DuPont Legal personnel, including documents also associated with non-legal personnel, requiring in camera review before compelled production. The court upheld the trial court’s rejection of privilege claims for documents with no DuPont Legal names and approved the hearing on the plaintiffs’ global challenge to the privilege log.

Holdings

1. Mandamus relief is available when a trial court erroneously orders disclosure of privileged information because disclosure would destroy the benefit of the privilege and cannot be adequately remedied by appeal.
2. When a party asserting attorney-client or work-product privilege makes a prima facie showing of privilege and tenders the documents to the trial court, the trial court must conduct an in camera inspection before compelling production.
3. DuPont established a prima facie showing of attorney-client and/or work-product privilege for documents bearing both DuPont Legal and non-DuPont Legal names, and the trial court abused its discretion by ordering their production without in camera review.
4. DuPont failed to establish a prima facie showing of privilege for documents containing no DuPont Legal names, so the trial court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting the privilege claims for those documents.
5. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by holding a hearing based on plaintiffs' global challenge to DuPont's privilege log; the discovery rules do not require the requesting party to particularize objections to each document before requesting a hearing.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by conducting a hearing on the plaintiffs' global challenge to all documents listed on DuPont's privilege log.
2. Whether DuPont made a prima facie showing of attorney-client or work-product privilege for documents bearing both DuPont Legal and non-DuPont Legal names.
3. Whether the trial court was required to conduct an in camera inspection before ordering production of documents for which DuPont made a prima facie showing of privilege.
4. Whether DuPont made a prima facie showing of privilege for documents containing no DuPont Legal names.

Disposition

writ_granted