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

lawsuitlitigationattorneydiscoveryleaseattorney-client privilege
contractbreach of contractlitigationattorneydiscoveryfiduciaryleasegood faithrespondentattorney-client privilege

Related Cases

Hawkins v. King County, Dept. of Rehabilitative Services, Division of Involuntary Treatment Services, 24 Wash.App. 338, 602 P.2d 361
View Case »
U.S. v. Mierzwicki, 500 F.Supp. 1331, 7 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1233
View Case »
Tallon v. Committee on Professional Standards, Third Judicial Dept., 86 A.D.2d 897, 447 N.Y.S.2d 50
View Case »
Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 111 S.Ct. 2123, 115 L.Ed.2d 27, 59 USLW 4595, 19 Fed.R.Serv.3d 817
View Case »
Matter of John Doe Grand Jury Investigation, 408 Mass. 480, 562 N.E.2d 69, 59 USLW 2329
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

National Farmers Union Property and Cas. Co. v. District Court For City and County of Denver, 718 P.2d 1044

Facts

National Farmers Union Property and Casualty Co. (NFU) was involved in a dispute with Tenneco Minerals Company regarding a claim for insurance benefits under a lease guaranty insurance policy. After Tenneco defaulted on sublease payments, NFU denied the claim, leading Tenneco to file a lawsuit. During the proceedings, Tenneco sought to compel the production of a memorandum prepared by outside counsel, which detailed the results of an investigation into the claim. NFU argued that the memorandum was protected by attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine.

Petitioner National Farmers Union Property and Casualty Co. (NFU or petitioner) instituted this original proceeding to prohibit enforcement of an order issued by the respondent court compelling discovery of a memorandum regarding a lease guaranty insurance policy.

Issue

Whether the memorandum prepared by outside counsel was protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine.

Whether the memorandum prepared by outside counsel was protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine.

Rule

The attorney-client privilege protects communications made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice, while the work product doctrine protects materials prepared in anticipation of litigation. However, documents created in the ordinary course of business are generally discoverable.

The attorney-client privilege protects communications made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice, while the work product doctrine protects materials prepared in anticipation of litigation.

Analysis

The court analyzed whether the memorandum was prepared in anticipation of litigation and determined that NFU failed to demonstrate that the document met the criteria for protection under the work product doctrine. The court noted that the investigation was conducted as part of NFU's normal business operations and that no litigation was imminent at the time the memorandum was created. Additionally, the court found that the memorandum did not contain legal advice but rather factual information regarding the claim.

The court analyzed whether the memorandum was prepared in anticipation of litigation and determined that NFU failed to demonstrate that the document met the criteria for protection under the work product doctrine.

Conclusion

The court concluded that the memorandum was discoverable as it was not protected by either the work product doctrine or the attorney-client privilege, and thus discharged the rule to show cause.

The court concluded that the memorandum was discoverable as it was not protected by either the work product doctrine or the attorney-client privilege.

Who won?

Tenneco Minerals Company prevailed in this case as the court allowed the discovery of the memorandum, ruling that it was not protected by attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine.

Tenneco sued petitioner under theories of breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, breach of statutory duties and breach of fiduciary duties.

You must be