UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 96-60433

__________________
GLADYS MADISON, Guardian for Viola Williams, Plaintiff,

versus VINTAGE PETROLEUM, INC., ET AL.,
Defendants.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *
HENRY LEE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus VINTAGE PETROLEUM, INC., ET AL., Defendants,
VINTAGE PETROLEUM, INC., Defendant-Appellant.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

__________________ No. 96-60585

__________________
GLADYS MADISON, Guardian for Viola Williams, Et Al., Plaintiffs,* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.
2 versus VINTAGE PETROLEUM, INC., ET AL.,
Defendants.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *
HENRY LEE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus VINTAGE PETROLEUM, INC., ET AL., Defendants,
PLACID OIL CO., Defendant-Appellee.

______________________________________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Mississippi (3:93-CV-663 & 3:93CV663LN)

______________________________________________

July 22, 1997 Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
This consolidated appeal challenges the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Placid Oil Co. (“Placid”) against
Henry Lee Williams. A panel of this court recently concluded that the district court lacked jurisdiction over Williams’s claims and
ordered the matter remanded to state court. S ee Madison v. Vintage1 The panel also held that there is federal jurisdiction over

the claims brought by Gladys Madison, as guardian for Viola Willi ams. S ee id. Because the plaintiff in that matter did not appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Placid, that decision remains in full force.
3 Petroleum, Inc. , 1997 WL 381236 (5th Cir. July 10, 1997). Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the district court and grant the appellant’s motion to dismiss the appeal (No. 96-60585). 1

Pursuant to the same authority, we maintain federal diversity jurisdiction over Vintage Petroleum, Inc.’s (“Vintage”) appeal from
the contempt order entered by the district court for its failure to comply with a discovery order (No. 96-60433). See id. The plaintiff argues that the protections otherwise provided to Vintage
and its attorneys by the work product doctrine were waived when
Southeastern Norm Environmental, Inc. (“Southeastern Norm”), a nontestifying, consulting expert witness hired by Vintage, disclosed
its reports to the Mississippi State Department of Health (“DOH”).
Under the circumstances of this case, we disagree. First, neither Vintage nor its attorneys voluntarily disclosed Southeastern Norm’s reports to DOH. Rather, it is undisputed that the holders of the privilege did not authorize the disclosure or know that it had
occurred. Second, nothing in the record establishes that the plaintiff in the inst ant case was privy to the disclosure of the subject reports. This court has recognized that the work product
doctrine exists “to promote the adversary system by safeguarding the fruits of an attorney’s trial preparations from the discovery4

attempts of an opponent.” S hields v. Sturm, Ruger & Co. , 864 F.2d 379, 382 (5th Cir. 1989). We believe that the doctrine’s goal will
be served most effectively in this case by continuing to protect the reports from discovery. Accordingly, we REVERSE the contempt order entered by the district court against Vintage.