Opinion ID: 894854
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Snap-Back Provision

Text: The snap-back provision was designed to protect the inadvertent disclosure of privileged material in order to reduce the cost and risk involved in document production. TEX.R. CIV. P. 193 cmt. 4. The snap-back provision states that: A party who produces material or information without intending to waive a claim of privilege does not waive that claim under these rules or the Rules of Evidence if  within ten days or a shorter time ordered by the court, after the producing party actually discovers that such production was made  the producing party amends the response, identifying the material or information produced and stating the privilege asserted. TEX.R. CIV. P. 193.3(d). The rule is focused on the intent to waive the privilege, not the intent to produce the material or information. Id. at cmt. 4. The snap-back provision has typically been applied when a party inadvertently produces privileged documents to an opposing party. See Warrantech Corp. v. Computer Adapters Servs., 134 S.W.3d 516, 525 (Tex.App.-Forth Worth 2004, no pet.) (holding that inadvertent production of privileged letter to opposing counsel did not waive the privilege under Rule 193.3(d)); see also In re Parnham, 2006 Tex.App. LEXIS 8252, 2006 WL 2690306, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding) (applying snap-back rule when privileged documents were inadvertently provided to opposing counsel during discovery); In re AEP Tex. Cent. Co., 128 S.W.3d 687, 693-94 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2003, orig. proceeding) (holding that privileged legal memorandum inadvertently produced to the opposing side must be returned under the snap-back provision). In this case, however, the privileged material was produced by a party to its own testifying expert, invoking Rule 192.3(e)(6)'s overlapping directive that all materials provided to a testifying expert must be produced. The tension between the snap-back provision that protects privileged documents and the expert-disclosure requirement presents an issue of first impression for our Court. In resolving this tension, we consider the respective interests the rules were designed to protect.