Court Opinion

ID: 9767138
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:11:06.276406+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:28.852316
License: Public Domain

Opinion for the court by Associate Judge KING.
Concurring opinion by Associate Judge FARRELL at p. 294.
Dissenting opinion by Senior Judge MACK at p. 294.
KING, Associate Judge:
This action arises out of the termination of the employment of Linda C. Carl, a probationary part-time nurse working in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (“NICU”), by ap-pellee Children’s Hospital (“Children’s”).
I.
Children’s hired Carl on October 14, 1991, with the understanding that she would be required to complete the NICU orientation program, which consisted of both clinical and classroom components, in order to be fully qualified to care for the infants in the unit, and to work a minimum of twenty hours per week. Following the commencement of her employment, Carl twice requested, and was granted, permission to defer attending orientation classes. At the time she was terminated, she had neither completed the program nor had she consistently met her minimum weekly hours.
In February 1992 Melinda Murray, one of Children’s in-house counsel, met with Jacqueline Muir, Assistant Vice President of Nursing, to discuss CaiTs employment status. This was followed by a meeting between Muir and Janice Berry, a clinical manager in NICU, to determine why Carl had failed to complete her orientation and to meet her minimum required work hours. On February 26, 1992, following these two meetings, Muir and two other Children’s administrative executives met with two of Children’s in-house counsel, Melinda Murray, Associate General Counsel, and llene Reid, Associate Counsel, to obtain legal advice concerning Carl’s employment status. Thereafter, on March 20, 1992, Children’s terminated Carl’s employment citing both her failure to complete the NICU orientation and her failure to work the required twenty hours as reasons for the termination.
Carl maintains that she was fired because she acted as plaintiffs’ expert witness in medical malpractice cases and also because of her testimony before the Council of the District of Columbia (“D.C. Council”), advocating a position antithetical to that of Children’s regarding tort reform legislation. She filed a six-count complaint against Children’s and Cathy J. Fonner, a nurse employed by Children’s as a clinical educator, seeking recovery for economic, medical, personal, and professional damages stemming from her termination by Children’s on theories of retaliatory discharge, promissory estoppel, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of contract, and intentional interference in contractual relations.
On December 11, 1992, the trial court dismissed Carl’s retaliatory discharge, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims, but ruled that Carl had sufficiently stated claims for promissory estoppel, breach of contract, and intentional interference in contractual relations.1 Thereafter, the parties engaged in extensive discovery, following which Carl moved to compel Children’s to answer certain deposition questions *288and to provide certain documents relating to the February 26, 1992, meeting between Children’s administrative executives and its in-house counsel. The trial court denied Carl’s motion to compel discovery on the ground of attorney-client privilege. Following this ruling, Carl voluntarily dismissed her remaining claims for promissory estoppel and breach of contract in order to test the discovery ruling in this court. In this appeal, Carl seeks reversal of the trial court’s dismissal of her retaliatory discharge claim and the order denying the motion to compel discovery as it relates to the promissory estop-pel claim.
II.
In reviewing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, we construe the complaint in favor of the plaintiff, and accept its allegations as true. McBryde v. Amoco Oil Co., 404 A.2d 200, 202 (D.C.1979). Thus construed, the complaint alleges that Carl was fired because she testified before the Council of the District of Columbia and served as plaintiffs’ expert witness in medical malpractice cases. Carl claims her discharge contravened specific public policies adopted by the District of Columbia including: (1) a citizen’s right to engage in political expression before the Council without fear of harassment or intimidation;2 (2) a professional nurse’s duty to participate in the legislative process, to advocate positions of public importance on behalf of patients, and to educate the legislature so that it can make informed public policy decisions;3 and (3) the evidentiary rule requiring expert testimony to establish a prima facie case of negligence in a medical malpractice action.4 The trial court, rejecting Carl’s public policy arguments, dismissed the claim, apparently in reliance on Adams v. George W. Cochran & Co., 597 A.2d 28, 32 (D.C.1991), stating:
I really don’t think there’s much dispute about what the law is here ... that’s a claim that only lies if, if there’s a dismissal based on the refusal to perform an illegal act. And I don’t think that’s what we [have] here....
The employment-at-will principle applied by the trial court is well-settled in the District of Columbia, and we have consistently held that an at-will employee may be discharged at any time for any reason, or for no reason at all. See Wemhoff v. Investors Management Corp. of Am., 528 A.2d 1205, 1208 n. 3 (D.C.1987); Taylor v. Greenway Restaurant, Inc., 173 A.2d 211, 211 (D.C.1961). In Adams, supra, this court reiterated its commitment to this principle, but created a very narrow exception because:
[it was] universally accepted that an employer’s discharge of an employee for the employee’s refusal to violate a statute is a wrongful discharge in violation of public policy[.]
Adams, 597 A.2d at 32 (citations omitted). We thus permitted a fired at-will employee to maintain an action against the former employer for wrongful discharge “when the sole reason for the discharge was the employee’s refusal to violate the law, as expressed in a *289statute or municipal regulation.” Id. at 34 (emphasis added). Carl concedes, and we agree, that she does not meet this exception, but invites the court to expand Adams to encompass a claim such as the one alleged by her, arguing that D.C.Code § 1-224,5 the national nursing code, and District of Columbia case law set forth clear public policy, the violation of which creates a wrongful discharge cause of action. See supra notes 2-4.
In four separate decisions since Adams, beginning with Gray v. Citizens Bank of Washington, 602 A.2d 1096, 1097 (D.C.), opn. reinstated on denial of reh’g, 609 A.2d 1143 (D.C.1992), we have considered and rejected efforts to expand the Adams exception to the at-will doctrine.6 In Gray, we held that “only the en banc court may undertake the extension appellant urges on us.” Therefore, we must affirm the trial court because “a division of th[is] court is not free to expand the Adams exception....” Gray, supra, 602 A.2d at 1096.
III.
The remaining issue involves the trial court’s denial of a motion to compel in which Carl sought discovery of certain information, which the trial judge denied on the ground of the attorney-client privilege. As a preliminary matter, we must resolve a jurisdictional question concerning whether this issue has been preserved, and whether we can consider it on this record.
During discovery of the promissory estop-pel claim, Carl undertook depositions and document discovery to determine the reasons for her termination. Having learned that the decision to fire her was made during a February 26,1992, meeting of senior administra-five officials at which two of the hospital’s in-house counsel were present, Carl sought to depose the administrators and attorneys who participated in the meeting. The deponents refused to answer questions or to produce documents relating to that meeting, contending that the information sought was protected by the attorney-client privilege. The trial court upheld Children’s characterization of the information being sought, and denied Carl’s motion to compel discovery. Carl contended that the trial court’s order frustrated her ability to proceed to trial on the promissory estoppel claim, and she therefore sought to dismiss the remaining claims — promissory estoppel and breach of contract — for the purpose of taking an appeal in order to challenge that order in this court. On October 22, 1993, the parties stipulated to a dismissal with prejudice of those two claims. We will now resolve the question of whether we have jurisdiction to hear an appeal of this issue, and, if so, whether the trial court erred, as Carl contends, in denying the motion to compel. We conclude that we do have jurisdiction and that the trial court committed no error.
A.
Jurisdiction is vested in this court to hear appeals from “all final orders and judgments of the Superior Court ...” disposing of the entire case with respect to all parties. D.C.Code § 11 — 721(a)(1) (1989); see Mills v. Cosmopolitan Ins. Agency, 442 A.2d 151, 152 (D.C.1982). Although we have never been called upon to determine whether a stipulated dismissal with prejudice is an appropriate means of obtaining the finality necessary for appellate review, that procedure is an *290accepted practice in the federal court system for perfecting an appeal. See Dorse v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 798 F.2d 1372, 1374-77 (11th Cir.1986).7 We endorse the authorities that recognize the practice, and accordingly conclude that we have jurisdiction to hear an appeal of this case.
We are particularly persuaded by the reasoning in Dorse, where the court analyzed the rationale of various jurisdictions that exercised appellate jurisdiction, as well as those that refused to exercise jurisdiction, under these circumstances. The court held that it had jurisdiction because the stipulated dismissal expressly recognized the party’s intent to appeal from the final judgment. Dorse, supra, 798 F.2d at 1377. The same is true here. Moreover, the specter of piecemeal appeals is absent because a ruling on the merits by the appellate court adverse to the appellant terminates the litigation. See Trevino-Barton, supra, 919 F.2d at 878. We hold, therefore, as do the federal authorities cited, that an order dismissing with prejudice all the claims of a complaint pursuant to a stipulation of dismissal for the purpose of appealing an adverse ruling is final and ap-pealable.8 See also Summers, supra, 925 F.2d at 454 (Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recommended this approach as an appropriate means of achieving finality).
B.
Having determined that we have jurisdiction, we now turn to Carl’s contention that the trial court erred in denying her motion to compel discovery with respect to the substance of the February 26, 1992, meeting (“meeting”). The decision whether or not to grant a motion to compel discovery, pursuant to Super.Ct.Civ.R. 37(a), is within the discretion of the trial court and we will not disturb such a decision “unless there has been an abuse of discretion resulting in prejudice.” Haynes v. District of Columbia, 503 A.2d 1219, 1224 (D.C.1986) (citation omitted). In this case, the trial court’s denial of Carl’s motion to compel discovery rested on the attorney-client privilege which, if sustainable, constitutes a legitimate basis for denial.9 See generally In re Arthur Treacher’s Franchisee Litig., 92 F.R.D. 429 (E.D.Pa.1981) (“Arthur Treacher’s ”).
The attorney-client privilege is designed to promote frank and unabridged communication between clients and attorneys in order that attorneys may render informed and sound legal advice. Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 389, 101 S.Ct. 677, 66 L.Ed.2d 584 (1981). It is the oldest of the privileges for confidential communications known to the common law, id., and assumes that:
if the client knows that damaging information could more readily be obtained from the attorney following disclosure than from himself in the absence of disclosure, the client would be more reluctant to confide in his lawyer and it would be difficult to obtain fully informed legal advice.
*291Western Trails, Inc. v. Camp Coast To Coast, Inc., 139 F.R.D. 4, 8 (D.D.C.1991) (citation omitted). In summary:
The privilege applies only if (1) the asserted holder of the privilege is or sought to become a client; (2) the person to whom the communication was made (a) is a member of the bar of a court or his subordinate and (b) in connection with this communication is acting as a lawyer; (3) the communication relates to a fact of which the attorney was informed (a) by his client (b) without the presence of strangers (c) for the purpose of securing primarily either (i) an opinion on law or (ii) legal services or (iii) assistance in some legal proceeding, and not (d) for the purpose of committing a crime or tort; and (4) the privilege has been (a) claimed and (b) not waived by the client.
In re Sealed Case, 237 U.S.App.D.C. 312, 316-17, 737 F.2d 94, 98-99 (1984). The privilege also protects communications from attorney to client if they “rest on confidential information obtained from the client”; or (2) if the party invoking the privilege demonstrates with reasonable certainty that “the lawyer’s communication rested in significant and inseparable part on the client’s confidential disclosure.” Id. 237 U.S.App.D.C. at 317, 737 F.2d at 99 (citation omitted).
In her affidavit, Melinda Murray, Children’s in-house counsel, stated that:
The purpose 'of this meeting was for Children’s Hospital to obtain legal advice regarding the status of Linda Carl’s employment ... [a]ll of the people ... [present] contributed to the meeting. Both [counsel,] Ms. Reid and I[,] gave legal advice to our client, Children’s Hospital. In giving this legal advice, Ms. Reid and I relied upon confidential information that we received from our client, in addition to relying on our previous experiences, backgrounds, educations, and prior professional experience with Children’s Hospital.
Applying the foregoing principles, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s determination that Carl’s proposed inquiry was barred by the attorney-client privilege.
Carl argued to the trial court that her ability to discover facts and documents relating to the meeting is critical to her ability to prove an essential element of her promissory estoppel claim. To prevail on a promissory estoppel theory, Carl must establish that Children’s made a promise to her which induced her detrimental reliance, and that enforcement of that promise would prevent injustice. See Simard v. Resolution Trust Corp., 639 A.2d 540, 552 (D.C.1994); Moss v. Stockard, 580 A.2d 1011, 1035 (D.C.1990); District of Columbia v. McGregor Properties, Inc., 479 A.2d 1270, 1273 (D.C.1984). The promise which allegedly induced Carl’s reliance is asserted to be contained in a memorandum from Cathy Fonner, Clinical Educator, in response to Carl’s declaration that she would not be able to attend the orientation class scheduled for the end of January. The memorandum stated “it has been agreed that you will ... attend orientation classes scheduled for Tuesday, April 21,1992.” Carl contends that this statement constituted a clear and definite promise which induced her into foregoing the taking of the orientation classes in January.
Carl maintains that the reason for her discharge was not her failure to complete the NICU orientation, but her testimony before the City Council and her service as plaintiffs’ expert witness. She argues that the discovery sought was not privileged because one of Children’s in-house counsel, who was also present at the City Council hearing, informed Children’s, at the meeting in question, of Carl’s testimony and her services as an expert witness. Relying on In re Sealed Case, supra, Carl argues that the order denying discovery should be reversed because Children’s did not demonstrate that the privilege applies to the questions at issue.10 In re *292Sealed Case, 237 U.S.App.D.C. at 317, 737 F.2d at 99 (“when an attorney conveys to his client facts acquired from other persons or sources, those facts are not privileged”) (citation omitted). We disagree.
In In re Sealed Case, an attorney testified before a grand jury on matters concerning the attorney’s former corporate client, which was the target of the grand jury investigation. The attorney had served both as corporate vice president and sole in-house counsel for the corporation, and on occasions discussed business as well as legal matters with corporate representatives. In re Sealed Case, 237 U.S.App.D.C. at 315 n. 2, 737 F.2d at 97 n. 2. During the attorney’s testimony, the corporation asserted the attorney-client privilege with respect to five different communications between the attorney and the corporate representatives. The first communication at issue, and the one on which Carl relies in her brief, involved a discussion initiated by the attorney in which the attorney disclosed to a corporate principal the contents of a conversation that he overheard at an airport regarding the corporation’s antitrust compliance. The attorney testified that during the conversation with the principal, he relied upon no information from any source other than facts he obtained from the overheard conversation. Additionally, during the conversation, the principal disclosed no confidential information to counsel. Id. 237 U.S.App.D.C. at 317, 737 F.2d at 99-100. Based on that testimony, the court held that no attorney-client privilege attached to the conversation because no confidential information was exchanged, and the purpose of the communication was not to obtain legal advice.
Carl’s reliance on In re Sealed Case is misplaced, however, for several reasons. First, contrary to Carl’s contention, In re Sealed Case does not stand for the proposition that the privilege never protects facts that an attorney obtains from independent sources and then conveys to the client; the court stated that the black letter law so holds, but observed that:
[i]n practice, however, advice does not spring from lawyers’ heads as Athena did from the brow of Zeus.... In a given case, advice prompted by the client’s disclosures may be further and inseparably informed by other knowledge and encounters. We have therefore stated that the privilege cloaks a communication from attorney to client based, in part at least, upon a confidential communication to the lawyer from the client ... [and] the claimant must demonstrate with reasonable certainty that the lawyer’s communication rested in significant and inseparable part, on the client’s confidential disclosure.
In re Sealed Case, supra, 237 U.S.App.D.C. at 317, 737 F.2d at 99 (citations and internal quotations omitted) (second emphasis added).
*293Second, In re Sealed Case is inapposite because in that case the attorney related facts that were obtained entirely from a conversation overheard at an airport, and the client did not exchange any confidential information with the attorney during the later discussion. Id. at 317, 737 F.2d at 99-100. Here, however, Murray’s uncontradicted affidavit established that the purpose of the meeting was to obtain legal advice concerning Carl’s employment and that everyone present at the meeting participated in the discussion. During these communications, Children’s management relayed confidential information to the in-house counsel, and the attorneys, in giving legal advice, relied upon information they had received from them client and other sources including their previous experiences, backgrounds, and prior professional relationship with the client. What-' ever the attorneys conveyed to Children’s was intimately related to the information received from the client and was therefore privileged. See Brinton v. Department of State, 204 U.S.App.D.C. 328, 332, 636 F.2d 600, 604 (1980), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 905, 101 S.Ct. 3030, 69 L.Ed.2d 405 (1981); See also Upjohn, supra, 449 U.S. at 390 (privilege protects client’s disclosure of confidential information to lawyer to enable lawyer to give advice).
Third, an examination of the questions at issue reveals that they could not be answered without disclosing privileged information. The questions seek to elicit information concerning topics of discussion or the subject matter of the meeting, see supra at footnote 8, which is privileged. See also Arthur Treacher’s, supra, 92 F.R.D. at 435 (declining to follow the view that the privilege would never operate to preclude inquiry into the subject matter of privileged communication); but see J.P. Foley & Co. v. Vanderbilt, 65 F.R.D. 523, 526 (S.D.N.Y.1974) (privilege “does not cover attorney’s communications— whether in the form of information or advice — ” which are not based upon confidential communications of the client) (citations omitted).11 From this record, we are persuaded that Children’s satisfied the Sealed Case exception by demonstrating that the lawyers’ communication was inextricably intertwined with the Children’s confidential disclosure. See Western Trails, supra, 139 F.R.D. at 8 (privilege protects communication from attorney to client if inextricably bound to confidential client communication).
Finally, we must weigh the interests involved, balancing the importance of the attorney-client privilege against Carl’s need for the information, considering such factors as whether the information sought goes to the heart of, or is crucial to, Carl’s discovery claims, and the issues framed by the pleadings. See Greater Newburyport Clamshell Alliance v. Public Serv. Co. of N. H., 838 F.2d 13, 20 (1st Cir.1988); see generally Plough Inc. v. National Academy of Sciences, 530 A.2d 1152, 1157-60 (D.C.1987). Where the information is crucial to the case and the factors favoring the privilege minimally outweigh the need for disclosure, the judge may allow discovery. Greater Newburyport, supra, 838 F.2d at 20 (the privilege ends at point where plaintiff can show that without the information sought, it would be virtually impossible to prosecute the claim.) Where, however, any response would be only marginally relevant, then the judge does not abuse his or her discretion in deciding in favor of the privilege. Id. (“a court should begin its analysis with a presumption in favor of preserving the privilege”). Here, the promissory estoppel claim was the only viable claim remaining in the case when the trial court denied the motion to compel, and as we previously observed, any responses to the questions propounded would be, at best, only marginally relevant to that claim.12 In short, Children's has demonstrated that the discovery sought is privileged, while Carl has not established any compelling need for the *294discovery sufficient to overcome the attorney-client privilege. See Greater Newburyport, supra, 838 F.2d at 19 (“while disclosure might be of some indirect, casual or remote benefit to the defendant ... such elusive benefit is not weighty enough to overcome the policy against disclosure”) (quoting Mitchell v. Roma, 265 F.2d 633, 637 (3d Cir.1959)). We therefore hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in striking that balance in favor of non-disclosure.

Affirmed.

FARRELL, Associate Judge, concurring:
In Elliott v. Healthcare Corp., 629 A.2d 6, 8-9 (D.C.1993), this court recently stated:
[T]he District of Columbia does not recognize the tort of wrongful or abusive discharge of an employee at will, other than by a very narrow public policy exception not applicable in this case. See Adams v. George W. Cochran & Co., 597 A.2d 28, 34 (D.C.1991) (former employee may sue former employer for wrongful discharge based on employee’s refusal to violate statute or municipal regulation); Ivy v. Army Times Publishing Co., 428 A.2d 831, 834 (D.C.1981) (en banc).[5]
The law in this jurisdiction is thus clear: unless an employee is fired for refusing to violate a statute or municipal regulation, no appeal to “public policy” will suffice to create an exception to the at-will doctrine. The court en banc, of course, is free to revisit that rule and decide that in the future any firing that results in suit will be tested for whether it “tends to be injurious to the public or against the public good.” Post at 297, Mack, J., dissenting (quoting Boyle v. Vista Eyewear, Inc., 700 S.W.2d 859, 871 (Mo.Ct.App.1985)). And, undoubtedly, the Council of the District of Columbia will continue its work of “[b]alanc[ing] the interests of the employee, the employer, and the public,” post at 297 (quoting Pierce v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 84 N.J. 58, 417 A.2d 505, 511 (1980)), and enacting specific prohibitions on retaliatory discharge in some areas or as to some classes of employees but not others.1
But, contrary to our dissenting colleague’s opinion, what a division of this court may not do is consider each new proffered public policy exception and decide for itself whether to expand the Adams opening still further. Our decisions in Elliott, supra, as well as Gray v. Citizens Bank of Washington, 602 A.2d 1096 (D.C.1992), and Smith v. Union Labor Life Ins. Co., 620 A.2d 265 (D.C.1993), foreclose any such three-judge attempt to open wide a door we have — with but a single exception — kept resolutely shut.2 It may be that the policy appellant articulates, viz., deterring intimidation (by threat of firing) of employees who voluntarily testify before legislatures or government bodies, will be compelling enough to cause the major revision of our law governing employee discharges that appellant seeks; time will tell. But what is certain, in light of our post-Adams cases, is that only the full court can make that judgment.

. On September 16, 1993, the parties stipulated to dismissal of the latter claim, without prejudice as to Children's, and with prejudice as to defendant Cathy J. Fonner.

.Carl argues that D.C.Code § 1-224 sets forth a clear public policy promoting a citizen’s right to testify before the Council. In relevant part this code section provides:
Whoever, corruptly or by threat of force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any witness in any proceeding pending before the Council, or in connection with any inquiry or investigation being had by the Council, or any committee of the Council, or any joint committee of the Council; or whoever injures any party or witness in his person or property on account of his attending or having attended such proceeding, inquiry, or investigation, or on account of his testifying or having testified to any matter pending therein ... shall be fined ... or imprisoned_

. This policy is supposedly grounded in the District of Columbia Health Occupations Act, Code § 2-3301.2(17)(C) (1981), defining the practice of registered nursing; and the national nursing code of conduct, Code for Nurses with Interpretative Statements § 11.2 (1985).

. Carl claims the public policy is grounded in case law such as: Washington v. Washington Hosp. Ctr., 579 A.2d 177, 181 (D.C.1990) (requiring expert testimony to establish each element of a negligence claim predicated on medical malpractice); Eibl v. Kogan, 494 A.2d 640, 642 (D.C.1985) (same); Gordon v. Neviaser, 478 A.2d 292, 295 (D.C.1984) (same); Sponaugie v. Pre-Term, Inc., 411 A.2d 366, 368 (D.C.1980) (same).

. Appellant has never contended, of course, that Children’s alleged retaliatory firing of her was conduct prohibited by § 1-224. At most she contends that the statute embodies a broader legislative disapproval of any acts that punish an individual for testifying before the Council. We rejected a similar argument for an exception based on the "policies” of a statute in Sorrells v. Garfinckel's, Brooks Brothers, Miller & Rhoads, Inc., 565 A.2d 285 (D.C.1989).

. See also Nolting v. National Capital Group, Inc., 621 A.2d 1387, 1389 (D.C.1993) (same: for filing workers’ compensation claim); Elliott v. Healthcare Corp., 629 A.2d 6, 8-9 and n. 5 (D.C. 1993) (same: for reporting deficiencies in the maintenance of dialysis machines to management); Smith v. Union Labor Life Ins. Co., 620 A.2d 265, 270 (D.C.1993).
In recognition of this history, Carl petitioned this court for initial hearing en banc arguing that judicial economy favored such a course. The court denied the petition; however, that resolution of the initial en banc request does not preclude Carl from again petitioning this court for a rehearing en banc from the decision of this division of the court rejecting any further extension of the at-will doctrine.

. See also United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 680-81, 78 S.Ct. 983, 985, 2 L.Ed.2d 1077 (1958); Trevino-Barton v. Pittsburgh Nat’l Bank, 919 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir.1990) (same: "since appellant’s solicitation of the formal dismissal was designed only to expedite review of an order which had in effect dismissed appellant’s complaint”) (citations omitted); Libbey-Owens-Ford, Co. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield Mut. of Ohio, 982 F.2d 1031, 1034 (6th Cir.) (same), cert. denied,-U.S. --, 114 S.Ct. 72, 126 L.Ed.2d 41 (1993); Summers v. United States Dep't of Justice, 288 U.S.App.D.C. 219, 223, 925 F.2d 450, 454 (1991) (recommending voluntary dismissal as an acceptable way to achieve finality); but see Amstar Corp. v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co., 607 F.2d 1100 (5th Cir.1979) (appellate review unavailable even if consent judgment includes express recognition of the intent of one of the parties to appeal the issue sought to be appealed), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 924, 101 S.Ct. 327, 66 L.Ed.2d 153 (1980).

. Reliance on the federal cases is appropriate because even though they interpret the federal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (limiting jurisdiction to "final decisions of the district courts”), this court has customarily treated that statute and our jurisdictional statute, D.C.Code § 11-721, in a similar fashion. See United States v. Harrod, 428 A.2d 30, 31 (D.C.1981).

. Super.Ct.Civ.R. 26(b)(1) provides in relevant part:
"Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party....” [Emphasis added.]

. The trial court found, and Carl does not contend otherwise, that the following constituted the questions at issue with respect to the resolution of the motion to compel:
1.What was "the issue” that was brought to your attention regarding Ms. Carl?
2. Was "the issue" the fact that Ms. Carl has testified as an expert witness or that she testified before the D.C. City Council on proposed medical malpractice legislation?
3. What was the name of the lawyer who told you about “the issue?"
*2924. Who attended the meeting at which “the issue” was discussed?
5. Did anyone chair the meeting?
6. Was Linda Carl the subject of the meeting or were other matters discussed?
7. Did anyone at the meeting state that Linda Carl did not take her NICU orientation in January 1992?
8. Did the lawyer for Children’s Hospital give a legal opinion at the meeting?
9. Was the meeting where you heard about "the issue” the first time that you heard about Linda Carl?
10. Was a decision made at the meeting to terminate Linda Carl’s employment?
11. Who decided to terminate Ms. Carl's employment?
12. Did you discuss "the issue” in subsequent meetings with Children’s Hospital employees?
Carl also asked for the production of documents made in preparation for the meeting. Except for questions 4 and 8, the court held that answers to the questions and the requested documents were protected by the attorney-client privilege and thus were non-discoverable.
It would appear that all of these questions are far more relevant to the wrongful discharge claim than to the promissory estoppel claim, if indeed, they are relevant to the latter claim at all. The trial court, however, had already dismissed the wrongful discharge count when this discovery was sought. See discussion supra, at page 287. The relevance issue was not raised in the trial court nor was it briefed in this court. During oral argument, however, in response to questions from the bench, Children's argued that the discovery sought was at most only "marginally relevant” to the estoppel claim. We have difficulty in discerning the relevance of these questions to the promissory estoppel claim, but do not directly decide the issue on that ground. See Neuman v. Neuman, 377 A.2d 393, 398 (D.C.1977) ("rules of discovery are limited by Rule 26(b), which imposes a relevancy standard upon any matter that a party seeks to discover”) (citations and footnote omitted).

. In Arthur Treacher's, the court criticized this view on the basis that (1) it would be elementary to hone the questions to require greater and greater specificity regarding the matter discussed so as to avoid altogether the effectiveness of the privilege; and (2) the responses would be of little benefit to an opponent or the court if they were limited to the most general terms because the privilege would preclude further questions going to the content of the discussion. Arthur Treacher's, 92 F.R.D. at 435.

. See note 10, supra.

] Broad "public policy” exceptions to the general rule of at-will employment have been urged upon this court before, and rejected by this court, id. 428 A.2d at 833-35, until the narrow exception in Adams, supra, 597 A.2d at 34.

. See D.C.Code §§ 1-616.3 (1992); 1-2525, -2556; 11-1913 (1989); 36-220.9, -220.10 (1993); 36-342; 36-1217; 36-1307, -1310. there intended future divisions to be free to adopt new exceptions to the doctrine.

. It is impossible to read Gray and reasonably conclude, as the dissent would, that a majority