The unintentional disclosure of privileged or confidential information in discovery responses is an ever-present fear for civil litigators who understand the damage that it can cause, not only to their client’s case but, as in the case of the recent Alex Jones trial in Texas, to a law firm’s reputation.
In this article, we will look at Texas law on inadvertent disclosure and how our state differs from many other states when it comes to the disclosing attorney’s responsibilities, including:
Those documents reportedly included privileged attorney-client communications, confidential health records of third parties, and communications that could be relevant to the investigation of the January 6 commission… The plaintiff’s attorney reportedly notified Jones’ attorney of the disclosures, and Jones’ attorney replied stating the files were “sent in error,” asked the plaintiff’s attorney to “please disregard the link,” and stated that he would “work on preparing a new one.” Is that enough to correct the attorney’s mistake? According to media reports, Jones’ attorney did not prepare a new link, identify the material, amend the discovery response, or assert any privileges that would apply within the ten-day time limit provided in the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff’s attorney then proceeded to use the inadvertently disclosed materials to impeach Jones on the witness stand – in a cross-examination that was immediately widely distributed in news media and Youtube videos – and use the information to demonstrate to the court and jury that Jones had been less than forthcoming in his previous responses. The effect of the inadvertent disclosure may be much wider-ranging than this one trial (which resulted in an award of over $45 million in compensatory and punitive damages). If Jones’ attorneys unintentionally waived attorney-client privilege as to the documents, they may be used in future civil cases against Jones or even criminal proceedings… What Does Texas Law Say About Inadvertent Disclosures of Confidential Material?In many states, the rules favor protecting the confidentiality of the disclosing party – some states even require the receiving attorney to stop reading the material immediately upon realizing the nature of the documents. Texas, however, is less forgiving. Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.3(d), the producing party must, within ten days after the producing party realizes what they have done or sooner if ordered by the court:
If the producing party does comply with Rule 193.3(d), the receiving party “must promptly return the specified material or information and any copies pending any ruling by the court denying the privilege.” Even when the producing party complies with Rule 193.3 they may not be in the clear – depending on the circumstances, the information may still be used in cross-examination of character witnesses, and the court may still find that privilege is waived when the producing party did not take appropriate steps to prevent involuntary disclosures in the first place… Texas Rules of Evidence As a starting point, Rule 511(b)(2) of the Texas Rules of Evidence (waiver by involuntary disclosure) states that “an inadvertent disclosure does not operate as a waiver if the holder followed the procedures of Rule of Civil Procedure 193.3(d).” Rule 511(a), however, clarifies that the privilege is still waived if the producing party “calls a person to whom privileged communications have been made to testify as to the person’s character or character trait insofar as such communications are relevant to such character or character trait.” In short, the receiving party can’t “unsee” the privileged disclosures, and can still use the information, when relevant, to impeach any character witnesses called by the producing party at trial. Texas Appellate Opinions Regarding Inadvertent Disclosures of Privileged Material The analysis doesn’t necessarily end with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and the Texas Rules of Evidence, though. The Texas Supreme Court has held that, where the disclosing party did not take steps to prevent the inadvertent disclosure of privileged materials and did not realize they had disclosed the information until eleven months later, privilege was waived even when the disclosing party complied with the rules. In Granada Corp., et al. v. The Honorable First Court of Appeals, 844 S.W.2d 223, (Tex. 1992), the Court found that “[T]he producing party has the burden of justifying preservation of privilege by showing that the circumstances demonstrate the involuntariness of the disclosure,” and privilege was waived where:
Please feel free to contact one of our Murray Lobb attorneys to obtain our assistance in civil litigation. We also remain available to help you with all your general corporate, construction law, business, and estate planning needs. Discover Our Areas of Practice View Blog Contact 281-488-0630 | [email protected] 2200 Space Park Dr, #350 , Houston, TX 77058
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |