Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantattorneydiscoveryhearingmotioncivil rightsgood faithattorney-client privilege
plaintiffdefendantdamagesattorneygood faithattorney-client privilege

Related Cases

SEC v. National Student Marketing Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp., 1974 WL 415, 18 Fed.R.Serv.2d 1302, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 94,610
View Case »
Herrmann v. Summer Plaza Corp., 201 Conn. 263, 513 A.2d 1211
View Case »
In re Refco Inc. Securities Litigation, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2012 WL 7007795
View Case »
In re Subpoenas Duces Tecum, 738 F.2d 1367, 238 U.S.App.D.C. 221, 39 Fed.R.Serv.2d 611, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 91,566, 16 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 165
View Case »
Greyhound Leasing & Financial Corp. v. Norwest Bank of Jamestown, N.W., 854 F.2d 1122
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Hearn v. Rhay, 68 F.R.D. 574, 33 Fed.R.Serv.2d 704, 2 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 523

Facts

The plaintiff, an inmate at the Washington State Penitentiary, was subjected to multiple disciplinary actions leading to his confinement in a mental health unit without a hearing. He alleged that the conditions in the mental health unit were punitive and violated his constitutional rights. The defendants, prison officials, denied the allegations and claimed immunity based on good faith actions. The plaintiff sought discovery of legal advice received by the defendants from the state attorney general regarding the legality of his confinement.

Plaintiff in this action is an inmate at the Washington State Penitentiary at Walla Walla. He was returned to the Walla Walla penitentiary in April of 1971 following his escape the previous year.

Issue

Did the defendants waive their attorney-client privilege by asserting a good faith defense in response to the inmate's civil rights claims?

The issues thus raised require a close examination of the attorney-client privilege which, for purposes of this case, is set forth in Federal Rule of Evidence 501.

Rule

The attorney-client privilege can be asserted by state officials, but it is waived when the officials raise a good faith defense that puts the legal advice they received at issue.

Defendants in this case assert in their answer that they ‘have acted in good faith’ and ‘that the decisions made by them regarding plaintiff's custody were discretionary acts of public officials for which they are immune from suit for damages'.

Analysis

The court found that by asserting the good faith defense, the defendants placed the legal advice they received from the attorney general directly in issue, thus waiving the attorney-client privilege. The court emphasized that the privilege should not protect communications that are essential to determining whether the defendants acted with malice or in violation of the plaintiff's constitutional rights.

Therefore, all the elements common to a finding of waiver are present in this case: defendants invoked the privilege in furtherance of an affirmative defense they asserted for their own benefit; through this affirmative act they placed the protected information at issue, for the legal advice they received is germane to the qualified immunity defense they raised.

Conclusion

The court granted the plaintiff's motions to compel discovery, ruling that the defendants had waived their attorney-client privilege regarding legal advice related to the issues of malice and knowledge of the plaintiff's constitutional rights.

Therefore, the court finds that, by asserting their qualified immunity as an affirmative defense, defendants impliedly waived the right to assert the attorney-client privilege with respect to any legal advice or confidential communications with the Washington Attorney General that relate to the issues of malice toward plaintiff or knowledge of plaintiff's constitutional rights.

Who won?

The plaintiff prevailed as the court granted his motions to compel discovery, allowing him access to information necessary to challenge the defendants' good faith defense.

The court finds that, by asserting their qualified immunity as an affirmative defense, defendants impliedly waived the right to assert the attorney-client privilege with respect to any legal advice or confidential communications with the Washington Attorney General that relate to the issues of malice toward plaintiff or knowledge of plaintiff's constitutional rights.

You must be