## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DIST RICT OF TEXAS F ORT WORTH

NO. 2-09 -351 -CV

IN RE HARCO NAT IONAL RELAT OR INSURANCE COMPANY

--- --- --- --- ORIGINAL PROCEE DING

--- --- --- --- 

### M E M O R A N D U M O P IN IO N 1

--- --- --- --- Relato r, Harco Nation al Insu rance Com pan y , s e e k s a w rit of ma nda mu s against Respo nde nt, the Hono rable Jef f W a lker, Judge of the 96t h District Court of T arrant Coun ty.
For the reaso ns th at f ollow, w e co nditio nally g rant relief

. Factual Back ground On Octob er 3, 200 7, Real Party in Inte rest Debra Fisher brou ght suit against Harco
and several o t h e r d e f e nda nts f or f raud and f raud ulen t indu cem ent arising out of the

non disclosure of insuran ce coverage in a prior negligence case bet w een Fisher and Sou thwest Inte rnatio nal T rucks, Inc. and its em ployee/d riv er Cliff ord Geo rg e Ste ece, Sr.
In her suit, Fisher asserte d tha t the def end ant s f ra u d u le n tly indu ced her to ent er into a settle me nt agreem ent settling all her claims f or dam age in the prior suit. On May 5, 200 8,

1  S e e T e x

. R

. A p p

. P

. 4 7

. 4

.Fisher serv ed Harco w ith a not ice of inten tion to take oral dep osition of t h e c o rp o r ate

represe nta tiv e o f

Harco, w hich in clude d a do cum ent request seekin g the p rodu ction of : [a]n y w ritings, lette r, me mo rand um s, em ails, or o t h e r docu me nts w het her ma nua lly create d or electro nically create d, in y our posse ssion, f rom any source , includin g but not limited t o , Sou thwest Inte rnatio nal T rucks, Inc., Charles Shriver, II, Herme s Sargent Bat es, L.L .P., Harco Nation al Insu rance Com pan y , Sou the rn Coun ty Mutua l Insu rance Com pan y , and R e p u b lic Lloyds, Inc., relating to the claim of Debra F is h e r f or injuries and dam ages again s t Sou thwest Inte rnatio nal T rucks, Inc., or oth er insurers to include docu me nts w het her generat ed by y ou or received by y ou, f rom any source , includin g electro nic or em ail com mu nicatio ns tha t ref er, me ntion s, state s, or oth erw ise alleges to insuran ce coverage of Sou thwest Inte rnatio nal T rucks, Inc., resulting f rom an aut om obile accide nt, w het her the source be prima ry , secon dary, um brella o r any oth er insu rance coverage. On May 12, 200 8 , Ha rc o f il e d a mo tion to quash the dep osition not ice, and the dep osition w as aut om atically stayed. On May 27, 200 8, Fisher resche dule d the dep osition
and again include d the docu me nt request. On June 2, 200 8 , Ha rc o f il e d a mo tion f or prote ctiv e order, conten ding tha t the docu me nt requests w ere overly broa d and that they sought to in v ade the att orne y -client a nd atto rney w ork prod uct priv ileges. T he trial court
cond ucte d a n e v iden tiaryhe aring on the motio n f or prot ective orde r on Octob er 2, 20 08.
At the conclu sion of the evidentiary hea ring, Harco subm itted the docu me nts listed on i ts priv ilege log to th e trial co urt f or an in ca me ra insp ection

. On March 11, 200 9, the trial court sent the part ie s c o rr e s pon den ce, statin g tha t Harco’s docu me nts generally f ell w ithi n t h e a t t orne y -client and w ork prod uct priv ileges;
howev er, it had det ermin ed tha t a large num b e r o f the docu me nts f ell w ithin exception s f oun d w ithin Rul e 5 0 3 (d )( 1 ), ( 3), and (5) of the rules of evidence. See T ex. R. Evi d.
503 (d)(1), ( 3), (5). On March 25, 2009, H arco’s counse l sent corr espo nde nce to the trial
court asking the court to ref rain f rom prod ucing the do cum ent s to Fisher unt il Ha rco had

2an opp ortun ity to consid er its op t io ns. On April 27, 200 9, Harco’s coun sel received

correspo nde nce f rom Fisher’s coun sel f orw arding a prop osed orde r to the trial court. On May 1, 200 9, Harco’s coun sel se n t F is h e r ’s coun sel correspo nde nce obje cting to the
prop osed ord e r

. On Sep tem ber 2, 200 9, Harco’s coun sel received a copy of
correspo nde nce from F isher’s counse l subm itting a prop osed orde r to the tri al court. On
tha t sam e day, Harco’s coun sel sent correspo nde nce to the trial court obje cting to the f orm of the prop osed orde r and asking the t r ial court to ref rain f rom signing the orde r or prod ucing the do cum ent s un til the m atte r could be he ard b y the trial cou rt. On Sep tem ber 10, 200 9, the trial court signed and ent ered an orde r in w hich it f oun d
tha t all of the docu me nts tha t had bee n pre s e n t e d b y Harco w ere discoverable except
tho se specif ically enu me ra t e d in t h e orde r. Upon receipt of the trial court’s orde r on Sep tem ber 14, 200 9, Harco sent correspo nde n c e to the trial court asking the court to ref rain f rom prod ucing the docu me nts to allow Harco the opp ortun ity to prese rv e the court’s
record and prote ct its rig hts by f iling a pet ition f or w rit of ma nda mu s. On Sep tem ber 17,
200 9, t he trial cou rt release d d ocum ent s to the pa rties. On Sep tem ber 25, 200 9, the trial court sent the partie s correspo nde nce statin g tha t
tw o add itiona l docu me nts (Harco 0 0 264 and Harco 004 42) w ere also discoverable and providing copie s of tho se tw o docu me nts to Fisher’s coun s e l. Harco the n f iled this

ma nda mu s proce edin g. Standard of Review
Mand am us w ill issue to correct a discovery orde r if the orde r const it u t e s a c l ear abu se of discretion and the re is no ade q uat e reme dy by app eal. In re Colonia l Pipe line

3Co ., 968 S.W .2d 938, 941 ( T ex. 199 8) (orig

. proce edin g) ; W alker v. Packe r

, 827 S.W .2d
833 , 839 (Te x

. 199 2) (orig

. proce edin g)

. W hen det ermin ing w het her the trial court abu sed
its discretion , w e are min df ul tha t the purp ose of discovery is t o s e e k t h e truth so tha t dispu tes ma y be decid ed by w hat the f acts rev eal, not by w hat f acts are conc e a le d. Colonia l Pipe line , 968 S.W .2d at 941. T he rules g overning discovery do not require as a prerequisite to discovery tha t the inf orma tion sought be adm issible evidence; it is eno ugh
tha t the inf orma tion app ears reaso nab ly calculat ed to lead to the discovery of adm issible

e vid ence

. See T ex. R. Civ

. P. 192 .3(a). But this broa d gr ant is limited by th e legit im a t e intere sts of the opposin g party to avoid overly broa d requests, hara ssme nt, or disclosure of priv ileged inf orma tion. In re Am

. Optica l Corp. , 988 S.W .2d 711 , 713 (Te x

. 199 8) (orig

. proce edin g)

. App ell a t e c o u rt s w ill not intervene to cont rol inciden tal trial court rulings w hen an ade quate reme dy by app eal exists. In re Prude ntial Ins. Co. of Am

. , 148 S.W .3d 124 , 136 (Te x

. 200 4 ) (o ri g. p ro ceed ing); W alker , 827 S.W .2d at 840

. A party w ill not have an ade quate reme dy by app eal (1) w hen the app ellate court w ould not be able to cure the trial court’s discovery error, (2) w hen the party’s ability to prese nt a v iable claim or def ense at
trial is v itiated or severely com prom ised by the trial court’s discovery error, or (3) w hen the
trial court disallows discovery and the missing discove ry c a n n o t b e ma de a part of the
app ellate record o r t he trial court, af ter prop er request, ref uses to ma ke it part of the
record. In re Ford Motor Co. , 988 S.W .2d 714 , 721 (Te x

. 199 8) (orig

. proce edin g) ; W alker , 827 S.W .2d at 8 4 3

. A ppe llate courts mu st consid er w het her the ben ef its of ma nda mu s

rev iew out w eigh the det rimen ts w hen det ermin ing w het her app eal is an ade quate reme dy.

4In re BP Prods. N. Am

. , Inc. , 244 S.W .3d 840 , 845 (Te x

. 200 8) (orig

. proce edin g)

. If a trial

court errone ously orde rs priv ileged ma tters to be disclosed , the re is no ade quate reme dy
at law , and ma n d a m u s is the prop er reme dy. See Dillard Dep’ t Sto res , Inc. v. Hall , 909 S.W .2d 49 1, 4 92 (Te x . 19 95); W alker , 82 7 S .W .2d at 843

. Priv ilege s Harco asserts tha t t h e t ri a l court clearly abu sed its discretion by f inding tha t its
docu me nts were discov erab le pursuan t to the exception s to the att orne y -client a nd w ork prod uct priv ileges enu me rated w ithin T exas Rules of Evi den ce Rule 503 (d)(1), (3), and (5). See T ex. R. Evi d. 503 (d)(1), (3), (5). Fisher, on the oth er han d, cont end s tha t the trial court
did not abu se its discretion by det ermin ing the docu me nt s w ere discoverable or by prod ucing the do cum ent s to her.
T o esta blish a p ri v ilege, a party mu st plea d the particu lar priv ilege, prod uce evidence to supp ort the priv ilege throu gh af f idav it s o r t e s timo ny, and prod uce the
docu me nts the mse lv es if the trial court det ermin es an in cam era rev iew is nece ssary

. See
T ex. R. Civ

. P. 193 .3(a); Pee ples v. Hon. Fourth Sup rem e Judicial Dist ., 701 S.W .2d 635 , 637 (Te x

. 198 5) (orig

. proce edin g)

. Once the party resisting discovery esta blishes a prima
f acie case tha t the docu me nts are priv ileged, the burd en shif ts to the discovering party to ref ute the pr ivi lege claim. See Maratho n Oil Co. v. Moye , 893 S.W .2d 585 , 591 (Te x

. App .—Dallas 1 994 , orig. proce edin g)

. A . A ttorney -Client Priv ilege
T he atto rney-cl ient priv ilege prote cts f rom disclosure conf iden tial com mu nicatio ns bet w een client and coun sel ma de f or the pur p o se of f acilitating the rend ition of legal

5serv ices. See Tex. R. Evi d. 503 (b); Huie v. DeSh az o , 922 S.W .2d 920 , 922 (Te x

. 199 6);

Arkla , Inc. v. Harris , 846 S.W .2d 623 , 629 (Te x

. App .—Houst on [ 1 4 t h Di s t.] 199 3, orig.
proce edin g)

. T his priv ilege atta ches to the com plete com mu nicatio n bet w een atto rney and client, includin g legal advice and f acts the rein. Maratho n Oil Co. , 893 S.W .2d at 589

. T he subje ct ma tter of the inf orma tion com mu nicate d is irrelev ant w hen det ermin ing w het her the priv ilege app lies. Id

. T he atto rney-cl ient priv ilege app lies only to com mu nicat io ns inten ded to be conf iden tial bet w een the atto rney and the client and ma de f or the purp ose of f acilitating the
rend ition of legal serv ices f or the client. See T ex. R. Evi d. 503 (b); Arkla , Inc. , 846 S.W .2d

a t 6 2 9

. A com mu nicatio n is “conf iden tial” if it is not inten ded to be disclosed t o t h ir d
p e rs o n s oth er tha n tho se perso ns to w hom disclosure is ma de “in f urthe rance o f t h e rend ition of prof ession al legal serv ices to the client or tho se reaso nab ly nece ssary f or the
transm ission of the c o m m u n i cation .” T ex. R. Evi d. 503 (a)(5). If a ma tter f or w hich a priv ilege has bee n asserte d has bee n disclosed to a third party, the p a rt y a s s e rt i ng the priv ilege has the burd en to prove tha t no w aiver occurred

. Arkla , Inc ., 846 S.W .2d at 630

. B. W ork product privilege
Rule 1 92. 5 d ef ines work produ ct as: (1) ma terial p r epa red or me nta l imp ressions develope d in ant icipation of litig ation or for trial by or fo r a party or a party’s represe nta tiv es, includin g the party’ s atto rneys, consu ltant s, suretie s, ind em nitors, insurers, e mp loyees, or a gents; o r (2) a com mu nicatio n ma de in ant icipation of litig ation or f or trial bet w een a party a n d t h e party’s represe nta tiv es or am ong a party’s repres e n t a tiv es, includin g the party’s atto rneys, consu ltant s, su re ties, inde mn itors, insurers, em ployees, or agents.

6T ex. R. Civ . P. 19 2.5 (a).

Rule 192 .5 enco mp asses dif f eren t levels of prote ction f or tw o types of w ork pr od uct.
F irst, core w ork prod uct is def ined as “the w ork prod uct of an atto rney or an att o rn e y’ s
represe nta tiv e tha t cont ains the atto rney’s or the atto rney’s represe nta tiv e’s me nta l imp ressions, opin ions, conclu sions, or legal the ories,” and it is not discoverable. See T ex. R. Civ

. P. 192 .5(b)(1). Seco nd, any o t h e r wo rk prod uct is discoverable only upo n a showing tha t the party seekin g discovery h as subst ant ial nee d of the ma terials in the
p re p a r ation of the party’s case and tha t the party is una ble, w ithou t und ue hard ship, to
obt ain the subst ant i al equiv alen t of the ma terial by oth er me ans. T ex. R. Civ

. P.
192 .5(b)(2).
Rule 192 .5(b)(2) preclu des discovery of an att orne y ’s w ork prod uct. Id

. T he w ork prod uct exemp tion prote cts the atto rney’s me nta l proce s s e s , conclu sions, and legal
the ories f rom discovery by ano the r party, the reby provi d in g a priv ileged area w here the
atto rney can ana ly z e and prep are t he case. Maratho n Oil Co. , 89 3 S .W .2d at 589

. T he

w ork product exempt ion extends both to docu me nts actua lly create d by the atto rney and

me mo rand a, repo rts, not es, or sum ma ries of i nte rv iew s prepared by oth er individuals f or the att orne y ’s use. Id

. C. Disc ussi on Fisher cont end s tha t Harco f ailed to prese nt suf f icient prima f acie proo f of priv ilege;
the ref ore, the burd en n e ve r s h if t e d to her to prove an exception to the w ork prod uct or atto rney-cl i ent priv ileges. How ever, at the evidentiary hea ring on Harco’s mo tion f or a prote ctiv e order, Harco o f f ered af f idavits by C harles Shriv er, II and C raig Ken ned y along

7w ith oth er exhibits in supp ort of its assertio n of priv ilege. T he prima f acie stan dard requires

only the min imu m quantu m of evidence nece ssary to supp ort a ration al inf eren ce tha t the allegation of f acts are true. See In re E.I. DuPo nt de Nem ours & Co ., 136 S.W .3d 218 , 225 (Te x

. 200 4) (orig

. proce edin g) ; Hum phre ys v. Caldw ell , 888 S.W .2d 469 , 470 (Te x

. 199 4) (orig

. proce edin g) ; In re Mahe r , 143 S.W .3d 907 , 913 (Te x

. App .—Fort W orth 200 4, orig.
proce edin g)

. Add itiona lly , a rev ie w o f t he docu me nts the mse lv es ma y const itute suf f icient
evidence to ma ke a prima f acie showing of atto rney-cl ient or w ork prod uct priv ilege. See
E.I. DuPo nt , 136 S.W .3d at 223 ; Humphre ys , 888 S.W .2d at 470

. W e have rev iew ed the
docu me nts and have det ermin ed tha t Harco 000 66 and Harco 005 4 8

– 0 0 5 5 1,
correspo nde nce bet w een Harco and its reinsurer Am erican Re-Insu rance Co., do not f all

w ithin any of the discovery priv ileges asserte d by Harco. Accordin gly , the trial court did not
abu se its discretion by orde ring the prod uction of Harco 000 66 and Harco 005 48, and any relief requeste d a s to the se d ocum ent s is de nied

. But , it is evident f rom our rev iew of Harco 000 24, Harco 000 57, Harco
000 58– 000 65, Harco 000 69-0 008 1, Harco 000 83, Harco 000 96– 000 9 7 , Ha r co 000 98– 000 99, Harco 001 43, Harco 001 97– 002 00 , Harco 002 64, Harco 004 42, Harco
004 51– 004 54, Harco 004 57– 004 80, Harco 0 0 5 2 2–0 053 1, Harco 005 49– 005 51, Harco
005 76– 005 77, Harco 006 39, Harco 006 57, and Harc o 006 64– 006 73 tha t the se docu me nts, w hich are prima rily com prised of me mo rand a , c laims and dam ages

sum ma ries, and case eva l uat ions, me et all the requireme nts of the atto rney-cl ient or atto rney w ork prod uct priv ileges. See T ex. R. Evi d. 503 (b); Arkla , Inc. , 846 S.W .2d at 629 ;

8see also Nat’ l Tank Co. v. Broth erton , 851 S.W .2d 193 , 200 (Te x

. 199 3) (orig

. proce edin g) ; Nat’ l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Vald ez , 863 S.W .2d 458 , 460 (Te x

. 199 3) (orig. proce edin g) ; Coats v. Ruiz , 198 S.W .3d 863 , 875 –76 (Te x

. App .—Dallas 200 6, no pet .). It is irrelev ant
tha t ma ny of the se docu me nts w ere prep a re d in conn ection w ith the suit bet w een Sou thwest Inte rnatio nal and Fisher rathe r tha n the und erly ing suit, since the w ork prod uct priv ilege is of cont inuing du ration

. See Ow ens-Cornin g Fibe rglas Corp. v. Cald we ll , 81 8 S.W .2d 74 9, 7 51– 52 (Te x . 19 91) (orig. proce edin g)

. Once a party dem onst rates the priv ilege app lies, the burd en the n shif ts to the party
seekin g produ ction to p rov e th at a n e x cept ion e x ists. See In re AEP Tex. Cent. Co , 12 8 S.W .3d 68 7, 692 (Tex. Ap p.—S an Ant onio 20 03, orig. procee ding); In re Monsa nto , 99 8 S. W .2 d 91 7, 93 3–3 4 (Te x

. App .—W aco 199 9, orig. proce edin g) ; Maratho n Oil , 893 S. W .2 d
at 589–9 0; Cigna Corp. v. Spe ars , 838 S.W .2d 561, 569 ( T ex. App .—Sa n Anto nio 199 2, orig. proce edin g) ; Freem an v. Bian chi , 820 S.W .2d 8 5 3 , 861 (Te x

. App .—Houst on [1st Dist.] 199 1, orig

. p ro c e e d i ng). Accordin gly , beca use the docu me nts listed abo v e are priv ileged, Fisher w as required to prove the existence of an exception to the priv ilege. See
In re AEP Tex. Cent. Co , 128 S.W .3d at 692 ; In re Monsa nto , 998 S

. W .2d at 933 –34 ; Maratho n Oil , 893 S.W .2d at 589 –90 ; Ci g n a C orp. , 838 S.W .2d at 569 ; Freem an , 820 S.W .2d at 861

. 503 (d) Exce ptions
Fisher argues tha t, even if Harco me t its burd en of proo f regarding the asserte d priv ile ge s , t h e d ocum ent s f all w ithin the crime-f raud or brea ch of dut y exception s and ,

9the ref ore, the docu me nts are discoverable. See T ex. R. Evi d. 503 (d)(1), (3) (ex plainin g

crime f raud an d b reach of du ty ex cept ions).
A . Crime -Fraud Exc eption
Fisher f irst cont end s tha t the docu me nts f all w ithin the crime-f raud exception

. See
id.
T exas Rule of Evi den ce 503 (d)(1) provides tha t ma terial oth erw ise prote cted by the
atto rney-cl ient pri vil ege is discoverable if the serv ices of the law y er w ere sought or obt aine d to ena ble or aid anyone to com mit or plan to com mi t wh a t t h e c li ent knew or

re a s o nab ly shou ld have known to be a crime or f raud

. See id .; see also Grana da Corp.

v. First Court of App eals , 844 S.W .2d 223 , 227 (Te x

. 199 2) (orig

. proce edin g)

. T he crimef raud exception app lies only if (1) the pa rty

asse rting it esta blishes a prima f acie case of
cont em plate d f ra u d and (2) the re is a relation ship bet w een the docu me nt f or w hich the priv ilege is challen ged and t h e p ri m a f acie proo f of f ered

. See Grana da , 844 S.W .2d at
227 ; W arrante ch Corp. v. Comput er Ada p t e r s Servs ., Inc ., 134 S.W .3d 516 , 527 (Te x

. App .—Fort W orth 200 4, n o p et.).
T he pri ma fa cie requireme nt is me t w hen the prop one nt of f ers evidence esta blishing
the elem ent s of f raud and tha t the f raud w as ongoing, or abo ut to be com mitt ed at the time
the docu me nt w as prep ared

. See In re AEP Texas Centra l Co. , 128 S.W .3d at 692 ; Cigna Corp. , 838 S.W .2d at 569

. Mere allegation s of f raud are not suf f icient. In re AEP Texa s Centra l Co. , 128 S.W .3d at 692 ; Cigna Corp. , 838 S.W .2d at 569 ; In re Monsa nto Co. , 998 S.W .2d at 933 –34

. Similarly, the f act tha t the plaint if f ’s cause of action involv es f raud ulen t
cond uct is a lso insu f

f icient. Cigna C orp ., 838 S.W .2d at 569

. T he f raud alleged to h ave

1 0occurred mu st have hap pen ed at or during the time the docu me nt w as prep ared , and the

docu me nt mu st have bee n cre a ted as part of perp etrat ing the f raud

. Id

. T he trial court

mu st ma ke f indings bot h tha t the prima f acie case has bee n esta blished and tha t a nexus exists bet w een the docu me nt at issue and the alleged f raud

. See Grana da Cor p

. , 844 S.W .2d at 227 ; Freem an , 820 S.W .2d at 861 –62

. T he nexus mu st be esta blished f or each priv ileged do cum ent

. See Freeman , 82 0 S .W .2d at 861

. Fisher cont end s tha t s h e e stab lished a prima f acie case of f raud beca use the
evidence clearly esta blishes tha t ad juster Da v id Le aryatt em pte d to f raud ulen tly con ceal
the existence of the $10 ,00 0,0 00 um brella pol i cy

. Spe cif ically , Fisher argues tha t the
evidence esta blishes tha t L e a ry did not disclose the existence of the um brella policy to Charles Shriver, the atto rney Harco retain ed to represe nt Sou thwest Inte rnatio nal T rucking
in the suit brou ght by Fisher. Fisher not es tha t altho ugh S o u t h w est Inte rnatio nal
supp lem ent ed its disclosure respo nses f iv e time s, the disclos u re respo nses never disclosed the existence of the um brella policy, and Lea ry n e ve r c o rr ecte d Sou thwest
Inte rnatio nal’s respo nses to the disclosure requests. Fisher also state s tha t Lea ry had an
opp ortun ity

but none the less fa iled to disclose the um brella p olicy du ring med iation w hen
she dem and ed $90 0,0 00, w hich was clearly in excess of the $5 00, 000 prima ry

limits.
Fisher claims tha t, to the extent tha t any of the docu me nts at is s u e h e re r elate to
Lea ry ’s v alua tion of the und erly ing case or the basis of his v alua tion, the docu me nts w ere part of the ongoing f raud ulen t conce alm ent

. How ever, neith er the me re allegation of f raud ,
nor t h e f act tha t a party’s cause of action include s f raud ulen t cond uct is suf f icient to
esta blish a prima f acie case of cont em plate d f raud

. See Cigna Corp ., 838 S.W .2d at 569 ;

1 1I n re Monsa nto Co. , 998 S.W .2d at 933 –34

. Fisher’s “ev iden ce” dem onst rating t h a t

Harco’s adju ster f ailed to advise Shriver of the existence of the um brella policy is prima rily Fisher’s ow n allegations of frau d against Harco, w hich serve as th e b asis of he r law suit. Such a dem onst ration w ill not s e rv e as a basis f or the app lication of the crime-f raud exception

. See Cigna Corp ., 838 S.W .2d at 569

. Furthe r, even if w e w ere to take Fisher’s
evidence into consid eratio n, it doe s not show tha t Shriver’ s serv ices w e re s o u gh t to aid
Lea ry in com mitt ing or plan ning to com mit a crime. See Grana da Corp ., 84 4 S .W .2d at
227 . In f act, Fisher he rself stat ed tha t Le ary

ha d n ever inf orme d S hriv er of the um brella policy.
T he crime-f raud exception requires the discovering party to esta blish a conn ection
bet w een the particu lar docu m ent s sought and the f raud alleged. See Grana da Corp ., 844 S.W .2d at 227 ; Freem an , 82 0 S

. W

. 2 d at 861 –62

. Moreover, the f raud alleged to have
occurred mu st have occurred at or during the ti m e t h e docu me nt w as prep ared and in
orde r to p erpe tua te t he f raud

. See Coats , 198 S.W .3d at87 6; Cigna Corp ., 8 38 S.W .2d
at 569

. As Fisher has not esta blished a p rima f acie case tha t the crime-f raud exception
app lies to the do cum ent s prot ecte d b y the att orne y -client p riv ilege, w e co nclud e th at t he
trial court abu sed its discretion by orde ring Harco to prod u c e t h e m o n the basis of this exception

. B. Brea ch of Duty

Ex ception
Fisher generally cont end s tha t any docu me nts Harco, throu gh L e a ry, had the
opp ortun ity to disclose to atto rney Shriver abo ut the existence of the um brella policy w ould
f all w ithin the brea ch of dut y exception

. T exas Rule of Evidence 503 (d)(3) p rov ides tha t

1 2a com mu nicatio n, oth erw ise prote cted by the atto rney-cl ient priv ilege, is discoverable if the

com mu nicat io n is relevant to an issue of brea ch of dut y by a law y er to the client or by a client t o th e lawy er. See T ex. R. Evi d. 5 03(d )(3); Brow n v. Green , 302 S.W .3d 1, 9 (T ex. App .—Houst on [14 th Dist.] 200 9, no pet .); Vinso n & El k in s v

. Mo rn an , 946 S.W .2d 381 , 394 ( T ex. App .—Houst on [14 th Dist.] 1997, w rit dism ’d). N oth ing in the record bef ore us indicat es tha t Fisher w as ever represe nte d by any of Sou thwest Inte rnatio nal’s or Harco’s
atto rneys. T hus, w e agree w ith Relato r tha t the brea ch of dut y exc e p t io n f o u n d i n rule
503 (d)(3) doe s not app ly in this case. Accordin gly , the trial court abu sed its discretion by
orde ring Harco to p rodu ce th e d ocum ent s pu rsuan t to this e x cept ion.
C. Joi nt Defense Exc eption
Fisher doe s not argue, and the record doe s not i n d ic a t e , tha t Harco’s docu me nts

w ere d is c o ve ra ble pursu ant to the joint def ense exception

. See T ex. R. Evi d. 503 (d)(5) (“As to a com mu nicatio n rele v ant to a ma tter of com mo n int erest bet w een or a mo ng tw o

or mo re cli e n t s if the com mu nicatio n w as ma de by any of the m to a law y er retain ed or

consu lted in comm on, w hen off ered i n an action bet w een or am ong any of the clients.”).
T hus, w e conclu de tha t this exception doe s not app ly

. See Maratho n Oil Co. , 893 S.W .2d
at 592

. Accordin gly , to the extent the trial court orde red Harco to prod uce the docu me nts
pursu ant to this e x cept ion, the trial cou rt ab used its discret ion.
Conclusion
Bec a u s e the docu me nts do not f all w ithin any of the exception s, w e hold tha t the
trial court clearly abu sed its discretion by ord e r ing the prod uction of the f ollowi ng docu me nts prote cted by th e atto rney-cl ient or w ork prod uct priv ileges: Harco 000 24, Harco

1 30 0 0 5 7, Harco 000 58– 000 65, Harco 000 69-0 008 1, Harco 000 83, Harco 000 96– 000 97,

Har c o 000 98– 000 99, Harco 001 43, Harco 001 97– 002 00, Harco 002 64, Harco 004 42,
Harco 004 51– 004 54, Harco 004 5 7

– 0 048 0, Harco 005 22– 005 31, Harco 005 49– 005 51,
Harco 00 5 76– 005 77, Harco 006 39, 006 57, and Harco 006 64– 006 73. W e cond itiona lly
gr ant ma nda mu s relief as to the docu me nts listed abo v e. T he w rit w ill issue only if the trial
court f ails to (1) v acat e its Sep tem ber 10, 200 9 orde r and its Sep t e m b e r 2 5 , 200 9 lette r ruling as to the docum ent s l isted abo v e, (2) orde r the retu rn of

all originals an d co pies o f
t h e p ri v ileged docu me nts provided to Debra Fisher by the trial court, and (3) issue suc h
orde rs as nece ssary to prevent the use and dissem inatio n of the priv ileged docu me nts and
inf orma tion cont aine d the rein. W e have rev iew ed the rema ining docu me nts, Harco 000 66
and Harco 005 48– 005 51, and have det ermin ed tha t the y do not f all w i t h in a n y of the discovery priv ileges asserte d by Harco. A c c o rdingly , the trial court did not abu se its
discretion by orde ring the prod ucti o n o f Ha rc o 000 66 and Harco 005 48– 005 51. As to
the se docu me nts, this court’s Octob er 9, 200 9 stay is here by lift ed and any relief requeste d
is den ied.

BOB MCCOY JUST ICE
PANEL : L IVINGS T ON, C.J.; MCCOY an d MEIE R, JJ.
DELIV ERED: Ju ne 24, 20 10

1 4