Case Title: Ex Parte Malone Freight Lines, Inc.

Citation: 492 So. 2d 1301

Docket Number: 

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 1986-06-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
492 So. 2d 1301 (1986)
Ex parte MALONE FREIGHT LINES, INC.
(In re Carol GOAD v. MALONE FREIGHT LINES, INC.)
85-379.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
June 20, 1986.
Fred McCallum, Jr., of Lange, Simpson, Robinson & Somerville, Birmingham, for petitioner.
C. William Gladden, Jr., and Linda A. Sullivan, of Balch & Bingham, Birmingham, for respondent.
MADDOX, Justice.
This is a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by defendant Malone Freight Lines, Inc. Plaintiff Carol Goad brought this action against Malone to enforce a judgment previously rendered in her favor by the Supreme Court of New York for $500,000.[1] In its answer, Malone admitted that the New York Supreme Court rendered a judgment and bill of costs against Malone on May 22, 1985, in the amount of $500,000. However, Malone contended as affirmative defenses that the judgment had been procured by fraud, which prevented Malone from receiving a complete, adversarial trial of the issues, and Malone also invoked the doctrine of equitable estoppel.
On December 9, 1985, Goad served interrogatories and a request for production of documents on Malone. Malone filed its responses on December 31, 1985, objecting to many of the requests on the basis that they violated the attorney-client privilege. That same day, Goad filed a motion to compel Malone to answer her interrogatories *1302 and to respond to her requests for production.
A hearing was held on this motion on January 2, 1986, before Judge Ingram Beasley of the 10th Judicial Circuit. In his order, Judge Beasley directed Malone to produce the entire claim file of Malone's New York trial counsel regarding the vehicular accident which led to the New York judgment against Malone. In addition, Judge Beasley ordered Malone to produce all correspondence from Malone's New York counsel to Malone, as well as all pretrial reports and trial reports prepared by Malone's counsel that related to the New York action.
Malone filed this petition for a writ of mandamus on January 10, 1986, asserting that many of the documents that Judge Beasley ordered produced are subject to the attorney-client privilege, under the "work product" doctrine, and, thus, are protected from discovery.
As Malone notes, confidential communications, both oral and written, between an attorney and client, are privileged, and, thus, exempt from discovery. While there are exceptions, Malone contends that none is applicable here.
However, in response to Goad's motion for summary judgment, Malone filed the affidavit of Joel Held, trial counsel for both Malone and David Goad, Carol's husband, in the New York action, alleging that the New York judgment was procured by fraud. In his affidavit, Held testified as follows:
*1303 While our research has revealed no Alabama cases on point, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York considered a similar situation in Garfinkle v. Arcata National Corp., 64 F.R.D. 688 (S.D.N.Y.1974). There, plaintiff Garfinkle contended that Arcata, the defendant, was required to register some 200,000 shares of stock pursuant to an agreement between Arcata and Garfinkle. Arcata defended, claiming that an opinion letter sent to plaintiff by its counsel had informed plaintiff that the stock would not be registered. Plaintiff requested production of all documents relating to the opinion letter. Arcata claimed that this information was protected by the attorney-client privilege. The court stated:
Garfinkle v. Arcata National Corp., 64 F.R.D.  at 689-90.
Similarly, in Haymes v. Smith, 73 F.R.D. 572 (W.D.N.Y.1976), prison inmates brought an action to assure the right of inmates to organize for collective bargaining purposes within a correctional institution and to challenge the validity of procedures that had resulted in a transfer of one prisoner due to his involvement in the organizing activities. Plaintiffs sought to ask questions at a deposition hearing that would otherwise be barred by the attorneyclient privilege. The court stated:
"Defendant Smith is directed to respond, upon oral deposition, to those inquiries by plaintiffs that are enumerated as Interrogatories 33 and 54 (and subparts therein)."
Haymes v. Smith, 73 F.R.D.  at 577.
While these opinions are not binding upon this Court, we feel that they correctly state the law as it exists in Alabama. In this case, Malone chose to defend against enforcement of the New York judgment in Alabama by claiming that the judgment had been obtained by fraud. As evidence of this, Malone filed the affidavit of one of its attorneys in New York, thereby injecting privileged material into the case as an issue. Therefore, Goad is entitled to discover all material which relates to the possibility of fraud in the prior action. We do not feel that an order requiring that Malone produce the entire claim file of the New York action is too broad, especially since Held's affidavit alleges that he became aware of the fraud over the course of the litigation. The writ, therefore, is denied.
WRIT DENIED.
JONES, ALMON, SHORES and BEATTY, JJ., concur.
[1]  While the facts involved in the original New York action are not clear from the record, it appears that David Goad was driving a truck owned by Malone, with his wife Carol as a passenger. The truck was involved in an accident and Carol Goad was injured. She sued both Malone and David in New York.