Court Opinion

ID: 9644102
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 20:48:03.511671+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:08.550213
License: Public Domain

GAMMAGE, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
I agree with parts I and II of the majority opinion. Republic must be given an opportunity to object to the special master’s report before Republic can be held to have waived objection to it. .1 agree with part III-A and most of part III-B of the majority opinion. This court’s Ginsberg opinion sets forth an “offensive use” exception to certain privileges, and the logical conclusion from our own opinions — as well as the better-reasoned opinions of our courts of appeals — is that the attorney-client privilege is subject to the Ginsberg doctrine. I also agree with part IV of the majority opinion. The party communications privilege is limited to the particular suit or suits in anticipation of which the communications are made.
I disagree with the last paragraph of Part III-B where the majority states, for the first time, three “factors” which are more “rigorous” than the corresponding elements for offensive-use waiver in federal courts. The statement in Hearn v. Rhay, 68 F.R.D. 574, 581 (E.D.Wash.1975), is adequate:
(1) the assertion of the privilege was the result of an affirmative act, such as filing suit, by the asserting party; (2) through this affirmative act, the asserting party put the protected information at issue by making it relevant to the case; and (3) application of the privilege would have denied the opposing party access to information vital to his defense.
See, e.g., Conkling v. Turner, 883 F.2d 431, 434 (5th Cir.1989); Lorenz v. Valley Forge Ins. Co., 815 F.2d 1095, 1099 (7th Cir.1987); GAB Business Servs. Inc. v. Syndicate 627, 809 F.2d 755, 762 n. 11 (11th Cir.1987). This court should not adopt an even more restrictive standard for determining when Ginsberg offensive use has occurred.
I strongly disagree with the majority’s perspective of the Declaratory Judgment Act counterclaim as not “seeking affirmative relief.” That the statute states it is “remedial” means nothing, since a number of statutes which are “remedial” have been held to authorize affirmative relief.1 The only authority the majority cites is a no-writ case, Emmco Ins. Co. v. Burrows, 419 S.W.2d 665, 670 (Tex.Civ.App.—Tyler 1967, no writ), which refers to declaring “existing rights, status, or other legal relations.” That hardly describes the Declaratory Judgment Act.
The Declaratory Judgment Act requires an actual controversy which will be resolved between the two parties before it can apply. United Servs. Life Ins. Co. v. *166Delaney, 396 S.W.2d 855, 860 (Tex.1965); Board of Water Eng’rs v. City of San Antonio, 155 Tex. 111, 114-15, 283 S.W.2d 722, 724-25 (1955); Cobb v. Harrington, 144 Tex. 360, 369-70, 190 S.W.2d 709, 713-14 (1945). It authorizes, at the trial court’s discretion, attorney’s fees to the prevailing party. Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem.Code § 37,009. In fact, Republic originally sought attorney’s fees in its counterclaim, though it later withdrew that request. The court’s judgment in a declaratory judgment action may include a mandatory or prohibitory injunction. Davis v. Pletcher, 727 S.W.2d 29, 35 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1987, writ ref’d n.r.e.); Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem.Code § 37.011. It may subject the losing party to contempt or subsequent injunctive order. Valley Oil Co. v. City of Garland, 499 S.W.2d 333, 335-36 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1973, no writ).2 There is no reason why Ginsberg should not apply to a party seeking declaratory judgment relief, just as it does to suits for other types of relief. The consequences can be every bit as devastating to the litigant under a declaratory judgment action.3
In Abor v. Black, 695 S.W.2d 564, 566 (Tex.1985), although admittedly in a venue context, this court condemned the use of a declaratory judgment action as a “preemptive strike” on a plaintiff’s claim. In this cause Republic sought to make just such a preemptive strike to defeat plaintiffs’ grounds for liability through a party-standing issue raised as a declaratory judgment action. This attempt to cut off liability by a procedural declaration is every bit as much an “offensive use” under Ginsberg as a suit to recover a money judgment. Put another way, a suit to declare one does not owe a contested debt because of some “affirmative defense” to that debt is every bit as much an “offensive use” in the Ginsberg sense — even though it is brought as a declaratory judgment action — as the suit to collect the contested debt itself would be.
Disagreeing with the conclusion there is no “offensive use,” I also disagree that the few documents the majority would protect should be protected. The special master and several district judges who have reviewed this matter properly concluded that the Ginsberg offensive use waived the attorney client privilege as to these documents. Accordingly, I would deny the petition for writ of mandamus in its entirety.
DOGGETT, J., joins in this concurring and dissenting opinion.

. See, e.g., Nuclear Corp. of Am. v. Hale, 355 F.Supp. 193, 197 (N.D.Tex.), aff’d, 479 F.2d 1045 (5th Cir.1973) (former article 5472e, contractor’s trust fund statute, now codified at Tex.Prop. Code Ann. §§ 162.001-.033, remedial but creates cause of action); Witty v. American Gen. Cap. Distrib., Inc., 727 S.W.2d 503, 504 (Tex.1987) (wrongful death statute "is remedial in nature"); Board of Ins. Com’rs v. Great S. Life Ins. Co., 150 Tex. 258, 239 S.W.2d 803 (1951) (insurance regulatory statutes); Castaneda v. Texas Dep't of Agric., 831 S.W.2d 501, 503 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1992, writ denied) (Whistle Blower’s Act, Tex.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 6252-16a, has a remedial purpose); National Farmers Union Property and Cos. Co. v. Degollado, 844 S.W.2d 892, 896 (Tex.App.—Austin 1992, writ denied) (Texas Workers’ Compensation Act remedial).

. The actual holding was that a subsequent injunction was appropriate. The opinion by Justice Guittard sets forth decisions from other jurisdictions having enacted the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act to demonstrate the contempt enforcement sanction.

. Contrary to what the majority claims, I do not imply and do not intend to imply that the majority concludes a declaratory judgment action is never an "offensive use” within the meaning of Ginsberg. 856 S.W.2d at 164 n. 12. I merely point out that in many instances a declaratory judgment action amounts to an “offensive use.” In my view, Republic’s suit in this cause qualifies as one such instance.