Court Opinion

ID: 9364820
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-20 08:09:17.765886+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:40.580063
License: Public Domain

In The

                           Court of Appeals

                Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                          __________________

                         NO. 09-22-00341-CV
                          __________________

                 IN RE PHILIPPE E. MULACEK
                AND ASIAN GAS PARTNERS, LTD

__________________________________________________________________

                      Original Proceeding
      457th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas
                   Trial Cause No. 21-08-11783
__________________________________________________________________

                     MEMORANDUM OPINION

     In this mandamus action—which arose from a dispute over whether

the trial court was required to conduct an in camera inspection of

documents to determine whether a protective order was required to

protect certain documents from being disclosed by the real parties in

interest to those not currently parties to this suit—the relators seek to

compel the judge of the 457th District Court of Montgomery County to

conduct an in camera inspection and to issue a protective order to prevent

                                    1
the documents subject to their motion from being disclosed to those who

are not currently parties to Trial Court Cause Number 21-08-11783. For

the reasons explained below, we conditionally grant the relators’ petition

for relief.

                               Background

      In the trial court, Philippe E. Mulacek and Asian Gas Partners,

LTD (collectively the “Mulacek Parties”) sued James P. “Jim” Dossey,

Individually and as Executor of the Estate of Dale Dossey, and Dossey &

Jones, PLLC (the “Dossey Parties”) alleging the Dossey Parties breached

fiduciary duties they owed the Mulacek Parties and committed fraud.

The claims of fraud hinge on complaints surrounding the alleged conduct

of two lawyer/accountants employed by Dossey & Jones, PLLC, who

provided legal and accounting services to the Mulacek Parties or to

companies in which Philippe Mulacek owns or claims to own an interest.

The Mulacek Parties’ fraud and breach of fiduciary duty claims include

allegations that Dale and Jim Dossey (Phillippe Mulacek’s former

attorneys) and Dossey & Jones, PLLC, among other things: (1) concealed

conflicts of interest; (2) divulged confidential bank records and privileged

communications; (3) placed their interest and the interest of Dossey &

                                     2
Jones, PLLC above those of the Mulacek Parties; (4) represented to the

Mulacek Parties that Jim Dossey and Dossey & Jones, PLLC would

maintain the attorney-client privilege even though they intended to

breach it; (5) failed to follow the instructions they were given by the

Mulacek Parties in transferring the Mulacek Parties’ interests in

businesses they owned as promised; and (6) improperly transferred

assets the Mulacek Parties owned to Jim Dossey under the powers Jim

Dossey exercised as the executor of Dale Dossey’s estate.

      In addition to other remedies, the Mulacek Parties sought to impose

a constructive trust and to obtain an accounting for the legal services the

Dossey Parties rendered to the Mulacek Parties for the fees Dossey &

Jones, PLLC charged the Mulacek Parties for its work. In a counterclaim,

the Dossey Parties asked the trial court for declaratory relief, and they

filed a counterclaim alleging the Mulacek Parties obtained their claim

through an assignment of interest, which they procured through fraud

and their use of their undue influence over Dale Dossey while Dale was

terminally ill.

      In the trial court and relying on Rule 192.6 of the Texas Rules of

Civil Procedure, the Mulacek Parties asked the judge to review

                                    3
documents they agreed to produce to the Dossey Parties in camera before

producing them to prevent the Dossey Parties from turning the

documents over to others. The Mulacek Parties argued that although

they agreed the Dossey Parties were entitled to the documents in the case

the Mulacek Parties filed in state court, as plaintiffs, against their former

attorneys, the Dossey Parties, the needs of the case justified the need for

a protective order to prevent the documents the Mulacek Parties

intended to produce from being disclosed to others since as to those not

parties to the case the documents remained privileged.

     According to the Mulacek Parties, the issues of privilege and

confidentiality center on the alleged disclosure of documents they will

under the Dossey Parties’ request produce to the Dossey Parties in the

case before the trial court subject to a protective order to prevent the

documents from being further disclosed. The trial court denied the

request. In this proceeding, the Mulacek Parties argue that should the

documents and the information in them be produced without the benefit

of an appropriate protective order, the Dossey Parties will be free to

provide their attorney-client privileged information and confidential

documents to entities or individuals who are not entitled to them,

                                     4
including to Philippe Mulacek’s former money manager, Carlo Civelli,

who is not a party in the case filed in state court. The Mulacek Parties

contend that the Dossey Parties intend to provide the documents to

Civelli and could provide the documents to others should they be

produced in the state court case without a protective order even though

the documents they are willing to produce in state court are still subject

to their confidentiality and attorney-client privileges as to those not

parties to the state court case. 1

      To protect the documents from being disclosed to those they claim

are not entitled to see them, the Mulacek Parties asked the trial court to

sign a protective order. They explained to the trial court that Mulacek

and Civelli are currently involved in a suit in federal court. They also told

the trial court they feared the Dossey Parties would give Civelli the

documents (or the information the documents contain) should the

documents be produced without an appropriate protective order in place.

The Mulacek Parties also argued the judge in the federal court case

involving the Mulacek Parties and Civelli had signed a protective order,

      1The Mulacek Parties do not argue or claim that the Dossey Parties’
attorney is not entitled to see or have the documents to produced subject
to a protective order in the state court case.
                                     5
which the Mulacek Parties claimed didn’t allow Civelli to obtain the same

documents the Mulacek Parties intended to produce to the Dossey

Parties in the state court case. As to Civelli, the Mulacek Parties argued

the fact they were involved in litigation with their former attorneys did

not waive their right to protect their attorney-client privileged

documents from Civelli from being disclosed by the Dossey Parties even

if the Dossey Parties were entitled to them in the state court case since,

as to Civelli, the documents remain privileged.

     The Dossey Parties filed a response to the motion for protective

order. In their response, they argued the Mulacek Parties were seeking

to protect documents Civelli had likely already seen when he served as

Philippe Mulacek’s money manager. They also claimed that Jim

Dossey—their client in the state court case, but whom they acknowledged

was Phillipe Mulacek’s lawyer before he withdrew from that

representation in May 2017—had probably already disclosed the

documents at issue to Civelli to prevent the Mulacek Parties from

engaging in fraud. According to the Dossey Parties, if the trial court were

to entertain the Mulacek Parties’ request and sign a protective order, the

relief the court granted should permit the Dossey Parties to share

                                    6
documents and cooperate with Civelli in their mutual effort to defend the

suits pending in state and federal court. The Dossey Parties further

argued that the allied-litigation privilege applied to the two suits, the

suit in federal court involving Civelli and the suit in state court involving

them because the Mulacek Parties were making nearly identical claims

in the suits.

     The trial court denied the Mulacek Parties’ motion seeking a

protective order without reviewing any documents to determine whether,

as to non-parties to the state court case, a protective order was required

by the needs of the case. After the trial court signed the order denying

the Mulacek Parties’ motion for protective order, the Mulacek Parties

asked the trial court to reconsider their request and to conduct an oral

hearing. In their Motion for Rehearing, the Mulacek Parties explained

again that the documents requested by the Dossey Parties included

documents that contained either attorney-client information or contained

sensitive commercial information, including information involving an oil

and gas transaction in 2014. In their Motion to Reconsider, the Mulacek

Parties represented that the Dossey Parties had threatened to share the

documents the Mulacek Parties had agreed to produce in the state court

                                     7
case with Civelli even though the documents were subject to the Mulacek

Parties’ attorney-client privilege, were confidential, and had been

withheld from Civelli by the federal judge in Civelli’s federal case.

     When the Dossey Parties responded to the Motion to Reconsider,

they argued that by suing their attorney, the Mulacek Parties disclosed

their allegations to the public and waived any claim of confidentiality as

to all matters in their pleadings and the facts required to rebut them.

The Dossey Parties claimed they should be allowed to share the

documents the Mulacek Parties produce in the state court case with

Civelli so they could determine whether the Mulacek Parties have fully

complied with their discovery obligations based on the requests served

on them in the state court case. Three days after the Motion to Reconsider

was filed, the trial court denied the Mulacek Parties’ request to conduct

an oral hearing on the motion. But it denied the requested hearing

without reaching the merits of whether to grant the Mulacek Parties’

request for a protective order as to non-parties.

     In a letter sent to the court coordinator by courier on July 11, 2022,

the attorney for the Mulacek Parties submitted a representative sample

of the documents he intended to produce to the Dossey Parties when,

                                     8
subject to a protective order, the Mulacek Parties planned on responding

to the Dossey Parties’ request to produce. As we understand the purpose

of the attorney’s letter, the documents he sent to the court coordinator

were provided so the trial court could inspect the documents in camera,

to aid the trial court’s understanding of the arguments that had already

been presented in a more general way in the Mulacek’s Parties’ motion

for protective order and motion for rehearing. In the letter, the attorney

for the Mulacek Parties asked the court coordinator to provide the

documents enclosed with the letter to the trial court so they could be

inspected in camera. The letter also states the Motion to Reconsider “is

set for submission this Friday, July 15, 2022.”

     However, the attorney for the Mulacek Parties didn’t file the letter

electronically, and he didn’t send a copy of the letter sent to the court

coordinator by courier to the attorney representing the Dossey Parties in

state court suit. So as of July 11, the attorney for the Dossey Parties

didn’t know the attorney for Mulacek Parties had sent the court

coordinator a letter asking the court coordinator to provide the trial court

with documents and to inspect them before issuing its ruling on the

                                     9
Motion to Reconsider. Ten days later and without explaining the basis

for its ruling, the trial court denied the Motion for Reconsider.

     Approximately two months later, by motion, the Mulacek Parties

filed a Motion to Temporarily Seal the records. The Motion to

Temporarily Seal specifically refers to “the records submitted to [the trial

court] for in-camera (sic) review on July 11, 2022.” The Motion to

Temporarily Seal also asks the trial court to stay its order so that the

court’s ruling denying the Mulacek’s Parties’ request for a protective

order may be “considered on appeal.” 2

     In response, the Dossey Parties argued that on September 27, 2022,

they learned for the first time that the defendants submitted documents

to the court on July 11 and had asked the trial court to examine

documents in camera. The Dossey Parties also argued the Mulacek

Parties had never provided the documents they wanted the court to

inspect to the Dossey Parties, and they argued the Mulacek Parties never

     2The Mulacek Parties relied on Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 76a(5)

regarding their request, a rule that allows temporary sealing orders to
issue “upon motion and notice to any parties who have answered . . . upon
a showing of compelling need from specific facts shown by affidavit or by
verified petition that immediate and irreparable injury will result to a
specific interest of the applicant before notice can be posted and a hearing
held as otherwise provided herein.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 76a(5).
                                      10
provided the Dossey Parties with a privilege log concerning the

documents tendered to the court. They concluded the Mulacek parties

were not entitled to a sealing order because the documents submitted to

the court were neither privileged, nor confidential.

     As to Jim Dossey, the Dossey Parties argued the documents are not

confidential or privileged because Jim Dossey (who served until he

withdrew as Phillipe Mulacek’s attorney) has the documents in his

possession already. The Dossey Parties suggested there is no reason to

protect the documents that Jim Dossey already has based on his

relationship with the Mulacek Parties as their attorney. And they argued

the Mulacek Parties were attempting to “hide bad facts” that would

undercut their damages claims by using Rule 76a in an effort to seal

records so they could not be used as evidence in court.

     On October 28, the trial court denied the Mulacek Parties’ request

to temporarily seal the records. In the same order, the trial court refused

to permit the records to be made part of the trial court’s records for the

purposes of an appeal. The trial court’s order states the court did so

because those documents “are not a part of the court’s file in any respect.”

According to the trial court, the reasons they were never made part of the

                                    11
trial court’s file is that “[t]hey constitute an ex parte communication and

were not reviewed by the Court” in deciding the Mulacek Parties’ Motion

to Reconsider. 3

     The parties agree the trial court never reviewed the documents the

Mulacek Parties’ attorney tendered to the court in July 2022. When the

attorney for the Mulacek Parties responded to the trial court’s order

denying the Motion to Seal, he sent a letter to the trial court, with copies

to the attorney representing the Mulacek Parties, which explained he

“did not—and we should have—electronically filed the July 11, 2022

letter submitting documents in camera to the Court. I apologize for this

     3Rule 76a(8) treats rulings  on Rule 76a motions as final judgments,
“which may be appealed by any party or intervenor who participated in
the hearing preceding issuance of such order.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 76a(8).
Relators, however, did not file a notice of appeal challenging the trial
court’s denial of the motion they filed under Rule 76a(5). See Tex. R. Civ.
P. 76a(5). As discussed above, the trial court said it did not review the
documents and the trial court refused to allow the documents the
Mulacek Parties tendered to the trial court to become part of the trial
court’s record. Although this Court granted leave for the Mulacek Parties
to submit copies of the documents submitted to the trial court, we
subsequently determined that an in camera inspection of the documents
by this Court would not be necessary to resolve the issues presented by
the Mulacek Parties in their petition for mandamus relief. Whether or
not specific documents tendered to the trial court must inspected in
camera either are, or are not, subject to the attorney-client privilege or
are confidential must be determined in the first instance by the trial court
after examining the documents in camera, as we explain below.
                                     12
failure.” But even after the Mulacek Parties’ attorney sent that letter of

apology, and even though the Motion to Temporarily Seal the Records

filed by the same attorney shows the attorney likely thought his office

had sent the Dossey Parties the July 2022 letter asking the trial court to

inspect representative documents (that both parties apparently have) in

camera, the trial court never changed its ruling, which required the

Mulacek Parties’ attorney to pick up the records he had sent to the court

coordinator. The trial court also never conducted an in camera inspection

of any documents relevant to deciding whether a protective order was

necessary based on the claims, issues, and needs of the case.

     At the request of the Mulacek Parties in this proceeding, we allowed

the Mulacek Parties to submit copies of the documents they submitted to

the trial court to the Clerk of this Court under seal so that we would have

the records if they were needed to resolve the arguments presented here.

                         Mandamus Proceeding

     A relator filing a petition for mandamus must show (1) that the trial

court clearly abused its discretion and (2) that the relator can’t remedy

the trial court’s error by the pursuing their ordinary remedy, which is

                                    13
through an appeal. 4 A trial court abuses its discretion by disregarding

the guiding rules or principles or by ruling in an arbitrary or

unreasonable manner. 5 A trial court’s “failure to analyze or apply the law

correctly is an abuse of discretion.” 6 As is relevant to this proceeding, a

“trial court abuses its discretion when it fails to adequately inspect

documents tendered for an in camera inspection before compelling

production when such review is critical to the evaluation of a privilege

claim.” 7

      The Dossey Parties do not dispute that they will disclose the

documents at issue if there is no protective order in place protecting the

documents from further disclosure. And the Mulacek Parties do not

dispute that they are willing to disclose the documents at issue to the

Dossey Parties if the trial court puts an appropriate protective order in

place. Thus, the issues that are joined in the suit could be fairly litigated

      4In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex.
2004) (orig. proceeding).
     5In re Garza, 544 S.W.3d 836, 840 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding).
     6In re Am. Homestar of Lancaster, Inc., 50 S.W.3d 480, 483 (Tex.

2001) (orig. proceeding) (citation omitted).
     7In re Christus Santa Rosa Health Sys., 492 S.W.3d 276, 279 (Tex.

2016) (orig. proceeding) (cleaned up). See also In re E.I. DuPont de
Nemours & Co., 136 S.W.3d 218, 223 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding);
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 843 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).
                                    14
if an appropriate protective order were to issue in the dispute filed below,

a dispute involving claims and counterclaims between a law firm,

lawyers in a firm who represented the firm’s former clients, and one or

more former clients of the firm. Even more, no evidence in the record

shows the rights of the parties to fairly litigate the issues in Trial Court

Cause Number 21-08-11783 would be prejudiced if the trial court signed

an order restricting the Dossey Parties from sharing what the Mulacek

Parties claim is privileged and confidential information in the documents

it has been requested to produce with those who are not currently parties

to Trial Court Cause Number 21-08-11783.

     For their part, the Dossey Parties do not contest the claim they will

share the documents and information the Mulacek Parties say the intend

to produce with others who are not parties to the state court case should

the documents be produced without the benefit of a protective order

prohibiting their further disclosure. And even though the Dossey Parties

have not seen the documents or seen a privilege log relating to them, they

have not suggested that when the attorney-client relationship that

previously existed between the Mulacek Parties’ and the lawyers with

the Dossey firm. Instead, the Dossey Parties argue the documents are no

                                    15
longer privileged because the Mulacek Parties sued the Dossey Parties,

and Jim Dossey and Civelli likely have already seen them. And the

Dossey Parties also claim that they should be allowed to share all the

documents and information discovered in the state court case with Civelli

and Civelli’s counsel because they may find information in the documents

that is beneficial to their efforts to rebut the Mulacek Parties’ claims that

Dossey and Civelli conspired to commit fraud.

     The Dossey Parties also suggest the Mulacek Parties should have

objected to their requests on the basis of privilege rather than moving for

a protective order to preserve the right to complain about a ruling

denying a protective order. We disagree with that argument, however,

since an objection on the basis of privilege is not a prerequisite to error

preservation when a party seeks a protective order under the Texas Rule

of Civil Procedure Rule 192.6. That Rule provides:

     (a) Motion. A person from whom discovery is sought, and any
     other person affected by the discovery request, may move
     within the time permitted for response to the discovery
     request for an order protecting that person from the discovery
     sought. A person should not move for protection when an
     objection to written discovery or an assertion of privilege is
     appropriate, but a motion does not waive the objection or
     assertion of privilege. If a person seeks protection regarding
     the time or place of discovery, the person must state a
     reasonable time and place for discovery with which the person
                                     16
     will comply. A person must comply with a request to the
     extent protection is not sought unless it is unreasonable under
     the circumstances to do so before obtaining a ruling on the
     motion.
     (b) Order. To protect the movant from undue burden,
     unnecessary expense, harassment, annoyance, or invasion of
     personal, constitutional, or property rights, the court may
     make any order in the interest of justice and may--among
     other things--order that:
     (1) the requested discovery not be sought in whole or in part;
     (2) the extent or subject matter of discovery be limited;
     (3) the discovery not be undertaken at the time or place
     specified;
     (4) the discovery be undertaken only by such method or upon
     such terms and conditions or at the time and place directed
     by the court;
     (5) the results of discovery be sealed or otherwise protected,
     subject to the provisions of Rule 76a.

Simply put, Rule 192.6(a) allowed the Mulacek Parties to file a motion

for protective order without waiving their argument that a protective

order was needed in the case to protect their documents subject to their

attorney-client and confidentiality privileges from being seen by those

who are not parties to the state court suit. 8

     Here, the request for production the Dossey Parties filed covers

“[a]ll documents and communications relating to any legal services

     8See   Tex. R. App. P. 192.6(a) (“A person should not move for
protection when an objection to written discovery or an assertion of
privilege is appropriate, but a motion does not waive the objection or
assertion of privilege.”).
                                  17
performed by Dale Dossey, Dossey & Jones, or James P. Dossey on behalf

of either Plaintiff in a capacity as legal counsel for either Plaintiff.” Thus

the request required the Mulacek Parties to produce documents that

invaded the Mulacek Parties’ rights as against non-parties to assert an

attorney-client privilege. Even the Dossey Parties concede the

information covered by their request includes attorney-client privileged

information. And the fact the Dossey Parties argued they intended to use

the discovery in the state court case for purposes outside the state suit is

yet another red flag that should have alerted the trial court to the need

in the state court case for a protective order.

      Under the circumstances and based on the arguments presented in

the motions without ever reviewing any documents, the trial court should

have seen the need to tailor a protective order tied to the needs of the

case to conduct an in camera inspection or to issue a protective order to

protect documents subject to the attorney-client and confidentiality

privileges from disclosure to non-parties. That said, the trial court

certainly had the right to question why the Mulacek Parties’ attorney

failed to provide the letter he sent to the court’s coordinator to the

attorney representing the opposing party (but not the documents

                                     18
tendered to the court). But on this record, the tender of the documents to

the court for an in camera inspection appears to have been an oversight

by the attorney, not intentional. The trial court did not conduct a hearing

to determine whether the documents were intentionally provided to the

court in violation of the attorney’s ethical duties to the court. The

attorney’s Motion to Seal suggests otherwise, as the motion references

the July 2022 letter and appears to assume the attorney’s office sent the

opposing attorney a copy of the July 2022 letter sent by courier to the

court coordinator. The attorney for the Mulacek Parties promptly

apologized to the trial court after learning about the oversight that

occurred in serving the July 2022 letter on opposing counsel by his office.

And even then, the attorney-client privilege is a privilege held by the

Mulacek Parties—not the attorney who is representing them in Trial

Court Cause Number 21-08-11783.

     Under Texas law, a trial court abuses its discretion if it refuses to

conduct an in camera inspection when an in camera inspection is critical

to evaluating a party’s privilege claim. 9 The Mulacek Parties have not

argued the Dossey Parties—their party opponents in the state court

     9In   re E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 136 S.W.3d at 223.
                                   19
suit—are not entitled to the discovery they requested. Instead, the

Mulacek Parties argue they need a protective order in place before

producing the documents to prevent the Dossey Parties from disclosing

documents to nonparties.

     Whether that relief is justified cannot be determined without the

trial court first inspecting the documents claimed to be privileged and

claimed to be confidential in camera. Under the circumstances, the

Mulacek Parties invoked the correct rule by filing a motion asking the

trial court for a protective order. 10 The Mulacek Parties did not waive

their right to assert claims of privilege claims by moving for a protective

order. 11 The trial court should have considered the needs of the case in

deciding whether a protective order was necessary in protecting what

both parties seem to agree constitute attorney-client privileged and

confidential documents before requiring the Mulacek Parties’ to produce

the documents in discovery.

     The Dossey Parties also argue the offensive-use doctrine supports

the trial court’s ruling denying the request the Mulacek Parties filed

     10SeeTex. R. Civ. P. 192.6(b)(5).
    11See In re Lincoln Elec. Co., 91 S.W.3d 432, 437-38 (Tex. App.—

Beaumont 2002, orig. proceeding [mand. denied]).
                                   20
asking the trial court to inspect the documents in camera. We disagree

because the offensive-use doctrine doesn’t apply when the party seeking

relief has agreed to provide the documents to the opposing party and

merely seeks to limit the documents from being produced to those who

are not entitled to them.

     The offensive-use doctrine prohibits a party from seeking

affirmative relief and at the same time protecting documents from

disclosure on claims of privilege when the documents could affect the

outcome of the case. 12 That’s not what the record shows occurred here.

The Dossey Parties want the documents and the Mulacek Parties have

agreed to produce them subject to a protective order. The dispute is

whether the Dossey Parties have the right to provide the documents they

receive from the Mulacek Parties to Civelli when the documents are

subject to claims of privilege without the trial court reviewing the

documents first. We see no reason to extend the offensive-use doctrine to

protective orders since the protective order at issue here doesn’t seek to

     12Tex. Dep’t of Pub. Safety Officers Ass’n v. Denton, 897 S.W.2d 757,
761 (Tex. 1995).
                                    21
prevent discovery and instead merely seeks to restrict the use of the

discovery to those who are parties to the case before the court. 13

     Next, we turn to the trial court’s refusal to review the documents in

camera before ordering their production. The Mulacek Parties rely on

Rule 192.6 to argue the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to

review the documents in camera before denying their motion. 14 On this

record, we agree.

     No one disputes the trial court refused to review the documents in

camera. To be fair, the trial court didn’t review them because counsel for

the Mulacek Parties failed to send a copy of the letter he sent to the court

coordinator to the attorney for the Dossey Parties when the Mulacek

Parties’ attorney tendered documents to the court. Even so, the trial

court’s order denying the Mulacek Parties’ Motion to Reconsider

indicates the court didn’t intend to change its ruling, leaving the Mulacek

Parties with no choice except to seek to compel the trial court to review

the documents in camera by filing an original proceeding in this Court.

     13See  In re M-I L.L.C., 505 S.W.3d 569, 597 (Tex. 2016) (orig.
proceeding) (The offensive-use doctrine does not decide the question of
whether discoverable trade secrets may be disclosed to a competitive
decision-maker who is acting as a litigant’s designated representative.).
      14See Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.6.

                                   22
     Assuming without deciding the documents at issue include

attorney-client privileged and confidential information, an appropriate

protective order is required to place limits on the rights of the parties in

the state court case to prevent the any privileged or confidential

documents from being disclosed to those who are not parties to Trial

Court Cause Number 21-08-11783. As to Civelli, he should seek to obtain

the documents from the Mulacek Parties he wants in federal court, as he

should not be entitled to get them from another party involved in

litigation in another forum. To boil it down: The trial court abused its

discretion by refusing to review the documents the Mulacek Parties claim

are subject to their attorney-client and confidentiality privileges before

denying the Mulacek Parties’ request seeking a protective order to

prevent the Dossey Parties from using documents and information that

may be either be confidential or subject to the Mulacek Parties’ attorney-

client privilege to be disclosed to those who are not parties to Trial Court

Cause Number 21-08-11783. 15

     15If it appears the case is going to trial and the parties want the
trial court to consider whether to seal any confidential or privileged
documents introduced or that a party plans to introduce into evidence to
be sealed, the party seeking a sealing order would need to file a motion,
                                   23
                               Conclusion

     Under the circumstances of the case, we conclude the trial court

abused its discretion by refusing to conduct an in camera inspection to

decide whether an appropriate protective order was needed given the

former relationships of the parties, the discovery involved, and the claims

being made by the parties in the case. 16 Without inspecting the

documents in camera to prevent them from being disclosed to those not

parties to the state court suit, the trial court had no way to assess

whether the documents the Mulacek wanted protected were either

confidential or privileged. 17 We hold the Mulacek Parties lack an

adequate remedy by appeal. We conditionally grant the Mulacek Parties’

request for mandamus relief.

obtain a hearing, and obtain a ruling that addresses the requirements in
Texas Rule of Procedure 76a. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 76a.
      16Any protective order the trial court may ultimately sign should

allow the parties to produce any documents under seal in another court
for that court’s in camera inspection so that court may rule on the claims
of privilege raised to discovery or lodged to subpoenas issued by that
court since the discovery rulings in state court on discovery are not
binding in the federal forum.
      17See In re M-I L.L.C., 505 S.W.3d at 579-80 (when allegedly

privileged documents are the only evidence to substantiate the claim of
privilege, the trial court must review the documents in camera).
                                     24
     We are confident that the trial court will vacate its orders of March

25, 2022, and July 21, 2022. We are also confident the trial court will

examine the documents in camera and sign a protective order

appropriate to the needs of the case based on the documents it reviews.18

A writ of mandamus will issue only should the trial court fail to comply.

     PETITION CONDITIONALLY GRANTED.

                                                   PER CURIAM

Submitted on November 8, 2022
Opinion Delivered January 19, 2023

Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Wright, JJ.

     18The  Mulacek Parties should prepare a privilege log, numbering
the documents and explaining as to each document what privilege or
claim of confidentiality is being asserted. The privilege log (but not the
documents) must be provided to the Dossey Parties so that they may
respond. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 193.3(a).
                                    25