Summary
The United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana explains its denial of Andrew Babinski’s motion to compel second depositions concerning an August 16, 2019 meeting involving LSU personnel and general counsel. The court holds that Defendants established the attorney-client privilege through supplemental evidence and that the crime-fraud exception did not apply. The court also denies the request to re-depose an additional witness because it was raised for the first time in reply and after the discovery deadline.
Holdings
- The communications made during the meeting were protected by the attorney-client privilege because Defendants established that the communications were between LSU employees and LSU's general counsel, were intended to be confidential, were kept confidential, and were made for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal advice.
- The presence of the LSU Academic Affairs representative did not waive the attorney-client privilege because she was an LSU representative involved in the matter and the communications occurred among LSU personnel participating in obtaining legal advice.
- The crime-fraud exception did not apply because Plaintiff relied primarily on allegations in his pleadings and failed to make a prima facie showing that any defendant intended to further a crime during the attorney-client representation.
- Plaintiff was not entitled to re-depose the defendants or the additional witness concerning communications made during the meeting because those communications were privileged and the crime-fraud exception did not apply.
Questions Presented
- Whether the communications made during the August 16, 2019 meeting were protected by the attorney-client privilege.
- Whether the presence of an LSU Academic Affairs representative waived the attorney-client privilege.
- Whether the crime-fraud exception defeated the attorney-client privilege.
- Whether Plaintiff was entitled to re-depose the witnesses under the discovery rules.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (22)
- United States v. Carr, 83 F.4th 267, 276 (5th Cir. 2023)(followed)
- Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 389 (1981)(followed)
- InPwr Inc. v. Olson Restoration LLC, No. 21-821, 2022 WL 2286182, at *3 (W.D. La. June 23, 2022)(followed)
- Southern Scrap Material Co. v. Fleming, No. 01-2554, 2003 WL 21474479, at *2 (E.D. La. June 18, 2003)(followed)
- In re Vioxx Products Liability Litigation, 501 F. Supp. 2d 789, 796 (E.D. La. 2007)(followed)
- United States v. Hamdan, No. 19-60, 2021 WL 1931626, at *4-5 (E.D. La. May 13, 2021)(followed)
- Cashman Equipment Corp. v. Rozel Operating Co., No. 08-363, 2009 WL 2487984, at *2 (M.D. La. Aug. 11, 2009)(followed)
- Swoboda v. Manders, No. 14-19, 2016 WL 2930962, at *3-4 (M.D. La. May 19, 2016)(followed)
- Crosby v. Louisiana Health Service and Indemnity Co., 647 F.3d 258, 262 (5th Cir. 2011)(followed)
- Wyatt v. Kaplan, 686 F.2d 276, 283 (5th Cir. 1982)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 22.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…