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

attorneydiscoveryliabilityappealproduct liabilitywrit of mandamusattorney-client privilegepiracy

appealtrial

Related Cases

Haines v. Liggett Group Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 61 USLW 2148, 36 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 782

Facts

Susan Haines, administratrix of the estate of Peter F. Rossi, filed a personal injury action against several tobacco companies, alleging product liability and conspiracy. Haines sought discovery of documents related to the Council for Tobacco Research, claiming they were relevant to liability and might show the Council was a fraudulent entity. The tobacco companies withheld approximately 1,500 documents, asserting they were protected by attorney-client privilege, while Haines argued the crime-fraud exception applied.

Susan Haines, administratrix of the estate of the deceased, Peter F. Rossi, a 40–year smoker, filed this personal injury action against petitioners, Liggett Group, Inc., Loew's Theatres, Inc., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Philip Morris Incorporated and the Tobacco Institute.

Issue

Did the district court properly exercise its reconsideration function under the Federal Magistrate Act when it considered evidence not before the magistrate, and did the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege apply to the documents in question?

Several important questions are presented in this original petition in mandamus filed by leading tobacco companies.

Rule

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), a district court may reconsider a magistrate's order only if it is shown to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege applies when communications are made for the purpose of committing a fraud or crime.

The Act provides that “[a] judge of the court may reconsider any pretrial matter under this subparagraph (A) where it has been shown that the magistrate's order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”

Analysis

The Court of Appeals found that the district court had improperly exercised its reconsideration function by considering evidence not presented to the magistrate. The court also noted that the judge's comments regarding the tobacco industry's concealment of dangers associated with smoking indicated a lack of impartiality, necessitating reassignment of the case. The court emphasized that the crime-fraud exception could apply if there was prima facie evidence of ongoing fraud.

The Court of Appeals found that the district court had improperly exercised its reconsideration function by considering evidence not presented to the magistrate.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals granted the petition for writ of mandamus, ruling that the district court's order was improper and that the case should be reassigned to another judge.

Petition granted.

Who won?

The tobacco companies prevailed in the appeal, as the Court of Appeals found that the district court had acted improperly in its reconsideration of the magistrate's ruling and in its comments regarding the tobacco industry.

The tobacco companies prevailed in the case as the Court of Appeals found that the district court had acted improperly.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Hogan v. Zletz, 43 F.R.D. 308, 11 Fed.R.Serv.2d 933, 154 U.S.P.Q. 230

U.S. v. Goldberger & Dubin, P.C., 935 F.2d 501, 67 A.F.T.R.2d 91-1166, 60 USLW 2001, 91-2 USTC P 50,315, 33 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 14

Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar, 421 U.S. 773, 95 S.Ct. 2004, 44 L.Ed.2d 572, 1975-1 Trade Cases P 60,355

Disciplinary Counsel v. Gardner, 99 Ohio St.3d 416, 793 N.E.2d 425, 2003 -Ohio- 4048

Reed v. Superior Court, 92 Cal.App.4th 448, 111 Cal.Rptr.2d 842, 01 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8278, 2001 Daily Journal D.A.R. 10,183