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

lawsuittortdefendantattorneyinjunctionhearingmotiontrade secretattorney-client privilege
tortdefendantattorneymotiontrade secretgood faithattorney-client privilege

Related Cases

Donovan v. Fitzsimmons, 90 F.R.D. 583, 31 Fed.R.Serv.2d 1537, 2 Employee Benefits Cas. 1393, 8 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 740
View Case »
U.S. v. Safavian, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2006 WL 3378479
View Case »
United States v. Petite, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2017 WL 1352223
View Case »
Hitch v. Pima County Superior Court, 146 Ariz. 588, 708 P.2d 72, 54 USLW 2242
View Case »
International Business Machines Corp. v. Levin, 579 F.2d 271, 1978-1 Trade Cases P 62,114
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Safety Today, Inc. v. Roy, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2013 WL 5597065

Facts

Safety Today, Inc. filed a lawsuit against former employees Susan Roy and Jeanne Brady, alleging they misappropriated trade secrets and breached duties of loyalty when they left to work for Safeware. The court had previously issued a temporary restraining order against the defendants, finding that Roy had emailed confidential files to her personal account and forwarded a confidential document to Safeware employees. Following a preliminary injunction hearing, the court found insufficient evidence that the defendants retained proprietary information but enjoined them from using any such information to solicit customers.

After alleging in its complaint that Ms. Roy and Ms. Brady misappropriated its trade secrets, breached duties of good faith and loyalty, and committed various other torts, Safety Today obtained a temporary restraining order from Judge Watson.

Issue

Whether the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege applies to the documents withheld by Safety Today, which the defendants argue relate to the sending of a misleading letter to customers.

Whether the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege applies to the documents withheld by Safety Today, which the defendants argue relate to the sending of a misleading letter to customers.

Rule

The crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege applies when the communications were intended to facilitate or conceal criminal or fraudulent activity, and courts may analyze wrongful conduct not strictly classified as a crime or fraud on a case-by-case basis.

The crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege applies when the communications were intended to facilitate or conceal criminal or fraudulent activity, and courts may analyze wrongful conduct not strictly classified as a crime or fraud on a case-by-case basis.

Analysis

The court determined that the defendants had alleged tortious interference with business relations, which is an intentional tort under Ohio law. The court found that the alleged conduct, involving a misleading misrepresentation of a court order, was sufficiently akin to fraud to warrant further exploration of the applicability of the crime-fraud exception. The court noted that there was credible evidence to support the claim that the letter misrepresented the court's order, justifying an in camera review of the withheld documents.

The court determined that the defendants had alleged tortious interference with business relations, which is an intentional tort under Ohio law.

Conclusion

The court granted the defendants' motion to compel, ordering Safety Today to produce the withheld documents for in camera inspection. The court did not determine the merits of the defendants' claims but found sufficient grounds to review the documents.

The court granted the defendants' motion to compel, ordering Safety Today to produce the withheld documents for in camera inspection.

Who won?

Defendants Susan Roy and Jeanne Brady prevailed in the motion to compel because the court found sufficient grounds to review the documents withheld by Safety Today under the crime-fraud exception.

Defendants Susan Roy and Jeanne Brady prevailed in the motion to compel because the court found sufficient grounds to review the documents withheld by Safety Today under the crime-fraud exception.

You must be