Opinion ID: 2646624
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: District Court’s Order After In Camera review

Text: After concluding its in camera review, the district court ruled that 39 of the 40 documents were not privileged. The one document that the district court found protected by the work-product doctrine was a draft of an expert report. The remaining 39 documents consisted of (1) Dr. Hinchee’s notes and (2) communications between Dr. Hinchee and “one or more individuals who were neither attorneys nor members of an attorney’s staff.” Some of the communications in this second group were between Dr. Hinchee and other expert witnesses testifying for Chevron. Other communications were between Dr. Hinchee and “Chevron nonattorney employees, including Sara McMillan [sic].” 1 The district court ordered Chevron and Dr. Hinchee to produce the 39 nonprivileged documents, explaining that the “work-product doctrine [does] not protect a testifying expert’s own notes or communications with another testifying expert.” The district court also ordered Chevron and Dr. Hinchee to “produce to the Republic all other documents [listed on the privilege log] . . . that were not draft reports or communications between Chevron’s attorneys or their staff members 1 Although not apparent from the district court’s order, the record indicates that Ms. McMillen is a scientist at Chevron and serves, inter alia, as the “Lago Agrio litigation Technical Team Project Manager.” 6 Case: 12-16216 Date Filed: 12/18/2013 Page: 7 of 23 and Dr. Hinchee or his staff members.” And to the extent Chevron and Dr. Hinchee still maintained any claim of attorney-client privilege or work-product protection over any document, the district court ordered Chevron and Dr. Hinchee to submit the document to the court for in camera review. Chevron and Dr. Hinchee timely appealed the district court’s order.