Toll-Free : 800-310-9769
Main Phone Number : 214-219-9900
Fax Number : 214-219-9456

We Know Texas | We Know Business

At The Bassett Firm, we provide peace of mind. We are trial attorneys. Not litigators, but attorneys who try cases. Our years of trial experience protect you and your company.

  1. Home
  2.  » 
  3. Texas Supreme Court Weekly Update
  4.  » Texas Supreme Court Weekly Update February 15, 2019

Texas Supreme Court Weekly Update February 15, 2019

On Behalf of | Feb 15, 2019 | Texas Supreme Court Weekly Update

Last week the Texas Supreme Court issued three opinions. One opinion was of interest.

In In re City of Dickinson, the court decided whether a party, the Texas Windstorm Insurance Association (“Association”), waived both the attorney-client and work-product privileges as to documents given to or prepared by an expert who is also the party’s employee. In trial court, the Association mistakenly produced e-mails between its claims examiner and its attorneys in response to the city’s request for production. The Association, arguing the e-mails were privileged, moved under civil procedural rule 193.3(d)’s snap-back procedure for the city to delete them. The Appeals Court reversed the trial court’s production order, rejecting the lower court’s reasoning that the privilege doesn’t apply to a testifying expert’s materials.

The Texas Supreme Court held that the Appeals Court did not abuse its discretion because the discovery rules do not waive the attorney-client privilege when a client or its representative offers expert testimony. The city argued that the language of the discovery rules clearly require production of documents furnished to or by a testifying expert, and make no exception for when that expert is a party or party employee, thus waiving the privilege. The Association, however, framed the issue as whether a party with specialized knowledge who wants to testify must waive the privilege to do so. Because Rule 192.3 does not otherwise waive the attorney-client privilege to withhold testifying expert materials from discovery, these attorney-client communications remain privileged under this rule. Though the city was permitted to request the e-mails under Rule 194.2, the same rule did not require the disclosure of otherwise privileged materials.

Finally, because the e-mails in this case are covered by the attorney-client privilege, Rule 193.3(d)’s snap-back provision was a proper remedy and the Court of Appeals was correct in overturning the trial court’s rejection of the Association’s proper motion.

The Bassett Firm