Cite as 2017 Ark. App. 5 6 8 

## ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION I No . CV

- 16

- 1096 GERBER PRODUCTS COMPANY A PPELLANT V. C ECO CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION, LLC, AND ALBERICI CONSTRUCTORS, INC. APPELLEE S Opinion Delivered: November 1, 2017 AP PEAL FROM SEBASTIAN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT , FORT SMITH DISTRICT [NO. 66FCV

- 12

- 435 ] HO NORABLE STEPHEN TABOR , JUDGE A FFI RMED

RAYMOND R. ABRAMSON , J udge
A ppellant Gerber Products Company (Gerber ) brings this interlocutory appeal from two discovery order s entered by the Sebastian County Circuit Court

. The rein, the court denied Gerber’s motion for a protective order and required Gerber to produce certain documents that it had withheld on the grounds of attorney

- client and work

- product privileges . The court also refused to require appellees CECO Concrete Construction, LLC (CECO) , and Alberici Constructors, Inc. (Alberici), to return or destroy privileged documents that Gerber had inadvertently produced during the discovery process. We affirm the circuit court’s rulings. I. Jurisdiction Because it is unusual for our appellate courts to entertain an interlocutory appeal, weCite as 2017 Ark. App. 568

2 take this opportunity to explain the basis for our jurisdiction. In 2012, our supreme court adopted Rule 2(f) of the Arkansas Rules of Appe ll ate Procedure−Civil

. See In Re Ark. Rules of Civil Procedure, Appellate P rocedure , 2012 Ark. 236. Rule 2(f) provides that a party may seek the supreme court’s permission to file an interlocutory appeal from certain designated discovery orders involving t he defense of privilege

. The rule further provides that in determining whether or not the interlocutory appeal may proceed, the supreme court will be guided by six factors: the need to prevent irreparable injury; the likelihood that the petitioner’s claim of privilege or protection will be sustained; the likelihood that an immediate appeal will delay a scheduled trial date; the diligence of the parties in seeking or resisting an order compelling the discovery in circuit court; the circuit court’s written st atement of reasons supporting or opposing immediate review; and any conflict with precedent or other controlling authority as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion. Ark. R. App. P.−Civ. 2(f)(1)(a)−(f) (2016). If the supreme court a llow s the appeal, the petitioner must file a timely notice of appeal and an appellate record. Ark . R. App. P.−Civ. 2(f)(3)

. In the present case, Gerber filed a Rule 2(f) petition to appeal from two discovery orders involving a claim of privilege

. The supreme court granted the petition and transferred Gerber’s appeal— along with two other Rule 2(f) cases in which permission to appeal had been granted

— to our court in August of this year

. Our jurisdiction is therefore pursuant to Rule 1- 2(d) of the Rules o f the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals of the State of Arkansas (providing that the supreme court may transfer to the court of appeals any cas e appealed to the supreme court ). Our research indicates that this will be the first case thatCite as 2017 Ark. App. 568

3 addresses the merits of a Rule 2(f) appeal. II. Background Th is case stems from a construction project at the Gerbe r plant in Fort Smith. Appellee Alberici served as the general contractor and construction manager on the project, and appellee CECO was hired to perform concrete work

. In 2012, a subcontra ctor on the job, Vee

- Jay Cement Contracting Company, Inc., sued Gerber, CECO, and Alberici in Sebastian County Circuit Court. Vee

- Jay’s claims were resolved and dismissed, but cross

- claims remained among Ger ber, CECO, and Alberici. I t was i n th e context of these cross

- claims that CECO and Alberici propounded requests for production of documents (RFPs) to Gerber in early 2013 during the discovery phase of the litigation. The RFPs asked that Gerber produce contracts, reports, emails, and other correspondence and paperwork related to the construction project, along with t he personnel files of two employees. Gerber objected to providing the personnel files on grounds of confiden tiality and irrelevance but otherwise m ade no objection to the RFPs

. In particular, Gerber made no objection that the requested materials were protected by attorney

- client or work -product privileges. Instead, Gerber responded to the RFPs with the statement, “See documents provided on enclosed disk ettes. ” The diskettes that Gerber provided contained approximately 2,700 pages of documents. Upon reviewing the documents, CECO and Alberici (hereafter, collectively “CECO”) determined that few , if any , emails from the year 2011 had been pro duced. CECO asked Gerber for the 2011 emails and, after several requests, was told that only twoCite as 2017 Ark. App. 568

4 relevant emails existed f rom that period . CECO also noticed that some of the documents included on the diskettes contained privileged materials. CE CO informed Gerber of that fact and returned the documents. Gerber stated that it would provide more material and would work on providing a privilege log. 1 As noted hereafter, the privilege log would not be provided for over two years. In May 2013, CECO filed a motion to compel further produ ction of documents by Gerber

. The circuit court granted the motion in July 2013 , ruling that Gerber had not obje cted to the RFPs but had “unilaterally” redefined the scope of the requests and produced only those documents in line with it s “narrowed interpretation ” of the requests. The court stated, “H aving made no objection . . . Gerber is bound to respond to the requests for produc tion as written.” After the en try o f the court’s order , Gerber sent CECO approximately 96,000 pages of additional documents

— considerably more than the 2,700 pages it had initially considered responsive to the RFPs. CECO characterized the production as a “ document dump” but reviewed the materials and still found them wanting. CECO detailed the perceived deficiencies in a June 2015 letter to Gerber and propounde d a second set of RFPs

. Thereafter, Gerber provided several thous and more pages of documents and in July 2015 produc ed a n eight -page privilege log . The log listed several items that Gerber cl aimed were subject to attorney

- client and work -product privileges. In October 2015, CECO filed a second motion to compel seeking a more complete

1 A privilege log contains a list of documents that fall within the parameters of a request for production but are not produced because they are claimed to be privileged.Cite as 2017 Ark. App. 568

5 response to its RFPs. The motion stated that Gerber had produced additional documents “fitfully and incomplete ly”; had “peppered” the production with irrelevant materials; and had not file d objections to either the first or second set of RFPs. The circuit court granted the motion to compel in January 2016 and imposed a $ 2,500 sanction on Ge rber, stating that there was reason to believe that Gerber had either intentionally delayed production, withheld production, or produced large amounts of unresponsive material. Soon thereafter , Gerber produced an additional 18,000 pages of documents and a second privilege log. Th e thirteen

- page log contained over 200 entries listing items that Gerber considered to be protected by attorney -c lient or work

- product privilege

— some of which had not been identified in the previous privilege log. Within weeks , CECO sent a letter to Gerber asserting that Gerber had waived its claim of privilege by waiting too long t o assert it and that, in any event, Gerber had already turned over some of the materials listed in the privilege log without objection in an earlier “document dump.” By thi s point, Gerber had acquired new counsel who responded that Gerber had not waived attorney

- client privilege and asked that CECO return or destroy

numerous inadvertently provided materials. CECO refused. In July 2016, Gerber filed a “Motion For Protective O rder Seeking Re turn of Inadvertently Produced P rivileged Documents and Protection of Unproduced Privileged Documents Identified On Privilege Logs.” Gerber asserted that it had not waived its right to withhold production of doc uments based on privilege, nor had it waived its right to seek the return or destruction of privileged documents that it had inadvertently produced. Following a hearing, the circuit court denied Gerber’s motion. The court relied on DunkinCite as 2017 Ark. App. 568

6 v. Ci tizens Bank of Jonesboro , 291 Ark. 588, 72 7 S.W.2d 138 (1987), for the proposition that failure to object to a discovery request in a timely manner waives all objections, including privilege. The court also stated that it was “ particularly taken by the apparent complete lack of precautions in plac e” to prevent Gerber’s inadvertent disclosures of privileged material. A second order was entered at Gerber’s request, clarifying that the court’s ruling governed both of the categories of documents at issue in this case : the materials Gerber had with held on the ground of privilege and the documents that Gerber had inadvertently produced

. Gerber appeals from those orders. For its arguments on appeal, Gerber contends that 1) the circuit court erred in ruling that Gerber waived its right to assert attorney -c lient and work -product privilege s as to the unproduced documents listed in the p rivilege logs and 2) the court erred in refusing to a llow the retrieval or destruction of the privileged documents that Gerber inadvertently provided to CECO during discovery. III. Standard of Review A circuit court has broad discretion in matters pertaining to discovery, and the exercise of that discretion will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion that is prejudicial to the appealing party. Hardesty v. Baptist Health , 2013 Ark. App. 731, 431 S.W.3d 327. To have abused its discretion, the circuit court must have not only made an error in its decision, but also must have acted improvidently, thoughtlessly, or without due consideration. Id . The abuse

- of -discreti on standard is also applied to a circuit court’s ruling on a protective order. See Nat’l Enters., Inc. v. Lake Hamilton Resort, Inc. , 355 Ark. 578, 142 S.W.3d 608 (2004).Cite as 2017 Ark. App. 568

7 IV. Documents Not Yet Produced Gerber argues first that the circuit court erred in ruling that it waived attorney

- client and work

- product privileges with regard to the unproduced documents listed in the privilege logs

. We note at the outset that at this interlocutory stage, we need not determine whether th ose documents are in fact privileged; the only issue before us is whether Gerber waived its right to assert the privileges on which it relies. A. Broad -Subject-Matter Waiver Gerber ’s primary argument under this point is that the circuit court incorr ectly applied a “broad

- subject

- matter waiver” to Gerber’s claim s of privilege on the as yet unproduced documents. A broad -subject- matter waiver occurs when a court rules that a party has waived the protection of a privilege simply by inadvertently p roducing other privileged documents during discovery. Gerber cites numerous c ases for the proposition that a party’s inadvertent disclosure of privileged materials should not result in a waiver of pri vilege as to all other materials on the s ubject. See, e.g. , In re Hechinger Inv. Co. of Del. , 303 B.R. 18 (D. Del. 2003); Koch Materia ls Co. v. Shore Slurry Seal, Inc. , 208 F.R.D. 109 (D.N.J. 2002); Parkway Gallery Furniture , Inc. v. Kittinger/Pa. House Grp., Inc. , 116 F.R.D. 46 (M.D. N.C. 1987). W e agree with Gerber that the federal courts generally frown on applying a broadsubject- matter waiver to claims of privilege in the context of discovery . However, the circuit court in this case did not employ a broad -subject- matter waiver or e ngage in that line of reasoning in denying Gerber’s motion for a protective order. Rather, as more specifically explained below, the circuit court ruled that Gerber waived its claims of privilegeCite as 2017 Ark. App. 568

8 by failing to object to the RFPs in a timely fashion. C o nsequently, w e d ecl ine to consider reversal on the ground of broad -subject- matter waiver

. See generally Hurst v. Ark. Radiology Affiliates , P.A. , 2015 Ark. App. 333. B. Waiver Based on Conduct As mentioned, the circuit court determined that Gerber’s assertion of privilege was not timely in this case. T he court’s decision was premised on our supreme court’s holding in Dunkin , supra , that the failure to object to di scovery requests in a timely fas hion waives all objections to the requests, including obje ctions based on privilege. W e see no abuse of discretion in the circuit court’s ruling

. Generally, a party may not obtain discovery of privileged matters. See Ark . R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (2016) . Howeve r, the assertion of a privilege is only safeguarded if the prope r p rocedures are followed in a timely fashion. Dunkin , supra . If proper procedures are not followed in a timely fashion, a claim of privilege may be deemed waived. Id .; s ee also Reed

v. A damec , 2014 Ark. App. 170. Here, it is beyond di spute that Gerber did not make a privilege objection or ask for a protective order in its 2013 response to the first set of RFPs; in fact , Gerber did not make any cognizable claim of privilege until its privilege lo gs were provided to CECO in July 2015 and February 2016. By any standards, Gerber’s claims of attorney

- client and work

product privileges were woefully overdue at that point

. Nevertheless, Gerber argues that the circuit court erred in applying Dunkin to impose a waiver of privilege in this case. In Dunkin , the appellant responded to the appellee’s in terrogatories approximately four months after the thirty

- day deadline established by Arkansas Rule of Civil ProcedureCite as 2017 Ark. App. 568

9 33 a nd objected to some of the interrogatories on the basis of the privilege against self

incrimination. Our supreme court held that the appellant had waived the privilege by failing
to timely assert it and therefore could not be excused from providing the reque sted discovery. Gerber argues that Dunkin is distinguishable , and while it does differ in some respects from the case at bar, that does not diminish its import. Under Dunkin , an objection to discovery based on privilege is subject to waiver if it is as sert ed too late in the process. In the case at bar , not only did Gerber fail to object on the grounds of attorney

- client and work -product privileges in its initial responses to discovery, it waited mo re t han two years to assert those privileges

. Moreover , Gerber’s lack of a timely objection persisted, despite its having been informed in the earliest stages of discovery that it had inadvertently delivered privileged materials to CECO ; and despite the fact that the circuit court’s July 2013 order to compel pointed out Gerber’ s failure to object to the RFPs. Further, Gerber continued to produce over 100,000 pages of documents during discovery while still making no objection on the basis of the attorney

- client and work

- product privileges. Additionally , Gerber’s untimely claim of privile ge was exacerbated by its general lack of compliance during discovery. The circuit court ruled, in granting CECO’s second motion to compel, as follows: The Court notes this is the second occasion on which an order to compel has had to be filed to obtain compliance from Gerber. In the first, Gerber unilaterally redefined the scope of the requests. In this instance, there is reason to believe they have either intentionally delayed production, withheld production, or produced large amounts of unresponsive material. Therefore, the Court herby orders that Gerber pay the sum of $2500.00 toward attorney’s fees for the filing of the present motion, t o be paid within thirty (30) days of this Order. While the Court is sues no further sanctions at this time, failure to comply with this Order or to cooperate in accordance with the discovery rules in the future almost certainly shall lead to sanctions.Cite as 2017 Ark. App. 568

10 Considering the overall circumstances in this case, we decline to hol d that the circuit court abused its discretion in ruling that Gerber waived its claims of attorney

- client and work

- product privilege s with regard to the unproduced documents listed on the privilege logs. We therefore affirm on this point. V. Documents Prod uced Inadvertently Gerber inadvertently produced a number of documents containing privileged material over the course of its responses to the RFPs. The first instance occurred in Gerber’s initi al response to the RFPs in 2013 , and Gerber was notified of that fact by CECO. At Gerber’s request, CECO returned the diskette that contained the privileged documents. Much later, after Gerber had provided thousands of additional pages of documents and two privil ege logs, CECO informed Gerber in Mar ch 2016 that many of the documents listed on the most recent privilege log had already been provided. Gerber responded with a request that the documents be returned , and when CECO refused, Gerber filed a motion for a protective order. The circuit court den ied the motion and refused to require the return or destruction of the inadvertently produced documents, citing Gerber’s lack of precautions in protecting the privileged matters. We affirm the court’s ruling. Rule 26(b)(5) of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure addresses the inadvertent disclosure of privileg ed materials during discovery. The rule provides, in part, that t he producing party is presumed not to have waived the defense of privilege as to inadvertently produced documents if, within fourteen days of discovering the inadvertent disclosure , it notifies the receiv ing party of the specific documents involved and the privilege to be asserted . Ark. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(A) (2016) . However, the circuit court may considerCite as 2017 Ark. App. 568

11 whether the surrounding circum sta nces show waiver. Ark. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(C). Among the factors the court shall consider is the reasonableness of the precautions taken to prevent the inadvertent disclosure. Ark. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(D)(i). Gerber argues that it responded to CECO’s Mar ch 2016 notification of inadvertent production within fourteen days and was therefore ent itled to the presumption of

non waiver

. While that is a matter of some dispute, we hold that, regardless, the circuit court was within its discretion to determine that a waiver occurred in this instance based on Gerber’s lack of precautions to prevent inadvertent disclosure. The record before us shows that the court’s concern about Gerber’s lack of precautions was well

- founded. For example, Gerber cites an affidavit from a representative of its former law firm as evidence of precautions taken against the inadvertent disclosure of privileged documents. However, the affidavit is lacking in detail on that subject and would by no means require t he circuit court to find that reasonable precautions were taken. Moreover, t he series of events throughout the parties’ multi year history of discovery demonstrate s a pattern by Gerber of providing large numbers of documents without objection and without su fficient and diligent screening for privilege d materials

. Affirmed. G LADWIN and W HITEAKER , JJ. , agree. Ledbetter , Cogbill, Arnold & Harrison, LLP , by: Victor L. Crowe ll , for appellant. Willliams & Anderson, PLC , by: David M. Powell , Alec Gaines , and Heather G. Zachary , for appellee CECO Concrete Construction, LLC.