Opinion ID: 2640130
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: if a privilege did attach to each communication at issue, did mr. moler waive it by answering certain deposition questions?

Text: ¶ 16 The resolution of the final issue whether Mr. Moler waived the privilegeis dependent upon the district court's resolution on remand of when, if at all, the lawyer-client privilege came into existence. Because the district court used the wrong legal standard in holding that Moler-Lewis was not the Molers' representative and that question remains unresolved, we are unable to reach a conclusion as to whether Mr. Moler waived the lawyer-client privilege. ¶ 17 Waiver is the intentional relinquishment of a known right. [8] To establish waiver, a defendant must show that the plaintiff had (1) an existing right, (2) knowledge of its existence, and (3) an intent to relinquish the right. [9] Therefore, in order to waive the privilege as to any given communication, the lawyer-client privilege must exist when the communication at issue occurred, and the holder of the privilege must consent to the disclosure. A plain-language reading of rule 507(a) of the Utah Rules of Evidence confirms this principle: A person upon whom these rules confer a privilege against disclosure of the confidential matter or communication waives the privilege if the person or a predecessor while holder of the privilege voluntarily discloses or consents to the disclosure of any significant part of the matter or communication. (Emphasis added.) The language of the rule suggests that there are two temporal requirements for waiver. First, the communication must be privileged at the time it occurred. Second, the disclosure that constitutes waiver of the privilege must be made while the person disclosing holds the privilege. ¶ 18 The district court, although concluding that the privilege never existed, nevertheless concluded that the privilege, if it did exist, had been waived. Understandably, the district court failed to make findings of fact as to when the privilege came into existence. Furthermore, the record provided to us on this appeal (and which, presumably, is the same record that was before the district court) does not contain a full transcript of the deposition at which Mr. Moler apparently testified about discussions between the Molers and Moler-Lewis. We therefore are unable to determine when the privilege attached and, without the benefit of a complete record, are also uncertain on what basis the district court concluded that Mr. Moler waived the privilege. ¶ 19 Furthermore, it is apparent from the record we do have that Moler-Lewis was present on numerous occasions both before and after the Molers retained counsel in anticipation of litigation. Even if Mr. Moler voluntarily testified regarding one or more confidential matters, it does not follow that he waived all lawyer-client privileges for all communications. Rule 507(a) restricts the scope of each waiver to a communication about which any significant part of the matter or communication has been disclosed. Therefore, Mr. Moler did not waive the privilege for a particular communication if he did not disclose any significant part of the particular matter or communication at issue. ¶ 20 We therefore remand to the district court for an assessment of whether a privilege arose under the framework we have described and, if so, when it arose. Only when these questions are resolved may the district court properly determine whether Mr. Moler waived the privilege during his deposition.