Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_18-cv-03836/USCOURTS-azd-2_18-cv-03836-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Latricia Flowers-Carter, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. 

Braun Corporation,

Defendant.

No. CV-18-03836-PHX-DWL

ORDER 

During the discovery process, Braun declined to produce 17 emails—all 

communications between agents of Braun and agents of non-party United Access 

(“UA”)—based on the assertion that the emails were covered by the common interest 

doctrine. (Doc. 166-1.) And in response to Plaintiffs’ motion to compel, Braun reiterated 

its position that all 17 emails were immune from disclosure because they constituted 

“Braun’s communications with UA” that “were made for the limited purpose of facilitating 

the rendition of legal services relating to UA’s response to Plaintiffs’ Subpoena for Braun’s 

documents.” (Doc. 154 at 15.) 

In an order issued on May 11, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to compel 

as to the 17 emails, holding that “Braun’s reliance on the [common interest] doctrine fails 

for the threshold reason that it has not demonstrated that the UA representatives with whom 

its lawyers were communicating were themselves lawyers or represented by lawyers at the 

time of the communication,” which “is a prerequisite to the application of the doctrine.” 

(Doc. 165 at 23.) 

Case 2:18-cv-03836-DWL Document 167 Filed 05/21/20 Page 1 of 3
- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Braun has now filed a motion for clarification of the May 11, 2020 order. (Doc. 

166.) Braun is not, however, actually seeking “clarification”—instead, it seeks to advance 

an alternative reason why it should be allowed to continue withholding one of the 17 

emails. That email was identified on Braun’s “common interest privilege log” as an August 

15, 2019 email from Braun’s outside counsel to five other Braun representatives and one 

UA employee, Rich Venhaus. (Doc. 166-1 at 3 [“Tab 4”].) Braun seeks permission to 

continue withholding that email because it was intended to be an attorney-client privileged 

communication sent only to other Braun employees and agents and the UA employee was 

“inadvertently copied” onto the recipient line. (Doc. 166 at 2 n.2.) Alternatively, Braun 

offers to make the email available for in camera inspection. (Id. at 2.) 

The Court will require Plaintiffs to file a response to Braun’s motion before deciding 

how to proceed. On the one hand, Braun has not explained why it offered one factual 

description of the August 15, 2019 email in its response to the motion to compel (i.e., an 

email intentionally sent to UA in an attempt to promote the parties’ common legal interest) 

yet now seeks to offer an entirely different and contradictory description of the email in its

motion for clarification (i.e., an email accidentally sent to UA due to an “inadvertent” 

typing error by Braun’s counsel). This abrupt change is disturbing. Additionally, the 

parties and Court already expended significant resources briefing and resolving the motion 

to compel, and a party ordinarily should not be allowed to advance new arguments, after 

coming out on the losing end of a motion, through the guise of a motion for clarification. 

On the other hand, the attorney-client privilege should not be cast aside lightly and the 

Court would benefit from further briefing on the legal issue of whether, assuming Braun’s 

new description of the August 15, 2019 email is accurate, its inadvertent transmission to a 

UA representative resulted in a waiver of the privilege. See Restatement (Third) of The 

Law Governing Lawyers § 79(c) (“Unauthorized disclosure by a lawyer not in pursuit of 

the client’s interests does not constitute waiver.”); but see id. (“Upon discovery of an 

agent’s wrongful disclosure, the client must promptly take reasonable steps to suppress or 

recover the wrongfully disclosed communication.”).

Case 2:18-cv-03836-DWL Document 167 Filed 05/21/20 Page 2 of 3
- 3 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs must file a response to Braun’s 

motion for clarification by June 1, 2020. Braun may file a reply by June 5, 2020.

Dated this 21st day of May, 2020.

Case 2:18-cv-03836-DWL Document 167 Filed 05/21/20 Page 3 of 3