Opinion ID: 155990
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: facts

Text: 2 Frontier operates a refinery in Cheyenne, Wyoming. In 1992, the refinery had a slop system to recover oil for recycling into crude tanks for future use. The slop system included two storage tanks, designated as Tank S5 and Tank S6. The slop system also included two centrifugal pumps, designated as Pumps 160-A and 160-B, manufactured by Gorman-Rupp. A fire originated in the refinery's slop system on June 8, 1992, causing extensive damage to the cast iron casing of pump 160-B. 3 The fire severely burned four contractors who were working in the area of the slop system. Three of the victims, Robin Torres, Merv Vowles, and Kee Elsisie, filed lawsuits against Frontier. Frontier and its liability insurers settled the Torres claim for $8.25 million, the Vowles claim for $6.75 million, and the Elsisie claim for $3.50 million. Frontier and its liability insurers also settled the claim of the fourth contractor, Sheldon Eike, for the sum of $750,000. Holland & Hart, and particularly attorney Joe Teig, represented Frontier in the defense of these claims. 4 Following settlement of the claims, Frontier filed this lawsuit seeking indemnification from Gorman-Rupp. Frontier obtained different counsel to prosecute the indemnity action. During the course of discovery, Gorman-Rupp filed a Motion to Compel Disclosure of the files of Frontier's counsel for the underlying claims. The district court granted the motion, ordering the production of Holland & Hart's files and the deposition of attorney Teig. The district court ruled that Frontier had waived the attorney-client privilege by filing a suit for equitable implied indemnity and that the work product doctrine did not apply. 5 Holland & Hart and Mr. Teig subsequently filed a motion for a protective order on their own behalf, arguing that the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine shielded their files from discovery. The magistrate judge denied the motion and ordered that the files be produced. 1 Holland & Hart attempted to appeal the magistrate's Order on the first day of trial, but the district court refused to hear its appeal. 6 The case proceeded to trial before a jury. As some of the allegedly protected and privileged materials began to come into evidence, the court became concerned that it had erred in its previous rulings. 2 Accordingly, the district court scheduled a hearing before another district judge to hear Holland & Hart's appeal of the magistrate's Order. 3 The district court affirmed in part and reversed in part the magistrate's Order, limiting waiver to documents existing on and testimony relating to dates prior to the settlement of the underlying claims. 4 The trial proceeded and Gorman-Rupp continued to use Holland & Hart file materials in its case. It also called attorney Joe Teig as an adverse witness. 7 The case was submitted to the jury on claims of product liability, misrepresentation, and negligence. The jury returned a verdict for the defense on all claims. The court entered judgment in favor of Gorman-Rupp on the verdict. Frontier filed a Motion for New Trial, which the court denied. This appeal followed. 8