Court Opinion

ID: 9966431
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-06 22:14:57.488122+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:11.054690
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

 HARLEY FRANCO; HMS PARTNERS,
 LLC,                                               No. 84292-7-I

                        Appellants,                 DIVISION ONE

               v.                                   UNPUBLISHED OPINION

 MACQUARIE CAPITAL (USA) INC.;
 MACQUARIE MARINE SERVICES,
 LLC; and MIHI, LLC; MATT GODDEN;
 TOBIAS BACHTELER,

                        Respondents,

               and

 HMS HOLDINGS 1 LLC; HMS
 HOLDINGS 2, LLC US; HMS
 HOLDINGS 3, LLC US; and HARLEY
 MARINE SERVICES, INC.,

                    Nominal Respondents.

       CHUNG, J. — Harley Franco, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Harley

Marine Services (HMS), sued his corporate business partner, MacQuarie Capital,

related companies, and two members of HMS’s board. A jury tried his claims of

breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duties, tortious interference with his

employment contract, and defamation.
No. 84292-7-I/2

       The jury found in favor of MacQuarie on the breach of fiduciary duties and

breach of contract claims and for Franco on his defamation and tortious

interference with contractual relations claims. The jury also found by a special

verdict that a single statement from the Delaware lawsuit both defamed Franco

and was the improper means by which MacQuarie tortiously interfered with his

employment contract. Because that statement was made in the course of

litigation, the court ruled that the litigation privilege applied and directed the

verdict on both the defamation and tortious interference claims for MacQuarie.

       Franco appeals the directed verdict. Franco also challenges the court’s

refusal to give a proposed instruction regarding dual fiduciaries and its rulings

relating to a third-party witness’s notes, including an instruction Franco claims

was a comment on that witness’s credibility. Finally, Franco challenges the

court’s exclusion, based on attorney-client privilege, of evidence relating to an

investigation that led to his termination. Finding no error, we affirm.

                                        FACTS

       Franco founded HMS in 1987 starting from just one tugboat. The company

provided maritime transportation services to oil companies such as Phillips 66,

Tesoro, BP, and Chevron, and shipping companies Maersk and Matson.

       MacQuarie Capital (USA) Inc. (MacCap), an investment and merchant

bank, supplied capital for HMS’s growth through its subsidiary, MacQuarie

Marine Services LLC (MMS). MMS bought a 49 percent interest in HMS for $48

million in 2008.

                                           2
No. 84292-7-I/3

       In 2013, HMS took a payment-in-kind (PIK) loan from MacCap subsidiary

MIHI. 1 By December 2017, the interest on the PIK loan had reached $94 million,

and MacQuarie 2 “wanted a liquidity event” because it had held its financial

position in HMS for a “very, very long” time.

       At the beginning of 2018, according to Franco, HMS Chief Operating

Officer (COO) Matthew Godden asked Franco “to turn over the presidency and

make [him] CEO.” Franco refused. At that time, Franco was focused on a sale of

bonds to retire the company’s debt. Godden testified that this securitization was a

“turning point for the company,” and the board was “focus[ed] on cost cutting and

getting the business performing [and] headed [in] the right direction.” But within

two weeks of the transaction, Franco was taking actions that caused Godden

concern, such as increasing rates paid to himself for properties and vessels the

company leased from him. These concerns led Godden to text Tobias Bachteler

on May 29, saying he was going to resign from HMS. Bachteler was MacCap’s

COO, an MMS director, and a Vice President at MIHI, a MacQuarie entity that

acted as agent for all lenders to HMS. Bachteler found this “shocking” and asked

Godden not to resign and instead to come to New York to talk. In his meeting

with Bachteler, Godden accused Franco of various improprieties involving

Franco’s personal expenses, deals with friends and family, and other boats that

he was attempting to build.

       1 A PIK loan allows a debtor to either pay periodic interest or have that interest added to

the debt principal.
         2 This opinion refers to the respondents MacCap, MMS, MIHI, Godden, and Bachteler

collectively as “MacQuarie” unless it is necessary to refer to a particular respondent.

                                                3
No. 84292-7-I/4

        MacQuarie then hired forensic accountants AlixPartners to look into the

issues Godden raised. At the end of June 2018, MacQuarie told Franco it was

prepared to file a “verified complaint” alleging that Franco had not only

embezzled large sums of money from HMS, but was destroying evidence of the

misconduct. At the beginning of July, MacQuarie asked Franco to temporarily

step aside. Franco’s response was to file a lawsuit in King County on July 2,

2018. He sued MacCap, MMS, and MIHI for breach of fiduciary duties and

declaratory relief.

        On July 3, 2018, AlixPartners sent its report to MacQuarie. Based on that

report and declarations from Godden and HMS’s former interim Chief Financial

Officer, MMS sued Franco derivatively on behalf of one of HMS’s holding

companies, Holdco1, in Delaware’s Court of Chancery that same day. On July 5,

HMS directors Bachteler and Godden held a conference call without Franco or

the other Franco-appointed director and decided to terminate Franco as HMS

CEO for cause. 3 On the same day, MMS voluntarily dismissed its Delaware suit

against Franco.

        Back in King County, on July 6, Franco obtained a temporary restraining

order declaring that he remained President and CEO of HMS. He also amended

his complaint to add Godden and Bachteler as defendants and claims for breach

of the duty of care and breach of contract.

        3 After the 2013 refinancing, HMS remained governed by a board of four directors.

Franco appointed two, MMS appointed Tobias Bachteler, and the fourth was an independent
director, Matthew Godden. These four were the directors at the time of the July 5 termination
decision.

                                                4
No. 84292-7-I/5

       In January 2019, HMS’s board placed Franco on temporary administrative

leave pending an internal investigation. The two independent directors of HMS 4

engaged employment attorney Russ Perisho to investigate and advise them.

Following the investigation, in March, the two independent directors and the

MMS-appointed director, Bachteler, voted to terminate Franco.

       Thereafter, in March 2019, Franco filed a second amended complaint

alleging breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, tortious interference with

contractual relations, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED),

defamation, and declaratory judgment. He also added HMS Partners LLC

(HMSP) as his co-plaintiff; that entity held Franco’s interest in HMS. 5

       MacQuarie moved to dismiss the complaint in April 2019. The court

granted the motion in part, dismissing the tortious interference and defamation

claims as to HMSP and the IIED and declaratory judgment claims.

       Two years later, in June 2021, MacQuarie moved for summary judgment

on the remaining claims. The court granted the motion in part and dismissed a

tortious interference claim involving two contracts not at issue here. However, the

court denied MacQuarie’s motion regarding the complaint’s remaining claims for

breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, defamation, and tortious interference

with Franco’s employment agreement.

       4 Two independent directors replaced Godden when he resigned from the board in

November 2018.
        5 Franco also added several HMS holding companies as nominal defendants, along with

previously named defendants MacCap, MMS, MIHI, Godden, and Bachteler.

                                             5
No. 84292-7-I/6

        In both its motion to dismiss and its motion for summary judgment,

MacQuarie argued that its statements in the Delaware litigation were protected

by the litigation privilege, so to the extent any claim by Franco 6 relied on

statements from its complaint in that case, they should be dismissed. The court

denied both motions as to the litigation privilege, reasoning that “[t]he statements

in the Delaware litigation may very well be privileged, however, the court agrees

with the plaintiffs that filing a case, making potentially defamatory statements in

that case, then dismissing the case as a matter of right before a court could take

any action concerning statements, may defeat any litigation privilege.”

        Subsequently, Franco raised the issue of the litigation privilege on the eve

of trial, in May 2022. 7 On May 9, before beginning jury selection later that same

day, the court ruled that “there is no litigation privilege because the complaint

was dismissed and the Delaware Court [of Chancery] did not retain the power to

supervise, discipline, or sanction any party.”

        After trial commenced, MacQuarie moved for reconsideration of the ruling

that the litigation privilege did not apply. The court granted MacQuarie’s motion.

Franco complained that he “shaped [his] entire case . . . in reliance on this

[c]ourt’s pre-trial ruling that no litigation privilege applied.” Franco proposed that

the jury should not be instructed on the litigation privilege, that all his claims

        6 We use “Franco” to refer to both Franco and HMSP when discussing appellants’

arguments.
         7 Plaintiffs raised the issue in a brief “re issues for the court’s consideration” filed on May

6, stating that “[t]he [c]ourt has already ruled Defendants are not protected by that privilege” and
“that the litigation privilege did not apply as a matter of law.” Plaintiffs then submitted another
memo, on May 9, regarding the privilege that again argued the earlier ruling was correct because
MacQuarie waived the privilege by voluntarily dismissing its suit.

                                                   6
No. 84292-7-I/7

should be submitted to the jury, and that the jury should be asked to separately

award damages for each claim. Franco suggested that then, assuming the jury

found for him on his defamation claim, the court would be able to grant a

judgment notwithstanding the verdict on that claim.

       To mitigate MacQuarie’s objection that it would be impossible to determine

whether a verdict on the defamation or tortious interference claim was based on

a statement covered by the litigation privilege, the court adopted Franco’s

proposal that the jury complete a detailed verdict form that required them to

specifically identify each defamatory statement.

       The jury found in favor of MacQuarie on Franco’s claims for breach of

fiduciary duties and breach of contract. It returned verdicts in favor of Franco for

defamation and tortious interference “by defamation,” finding MacCap, MMS, and

Bachteler each liable.

       On the special verdict form, the jury identified a single statement by MMS

made in the “Delaware filing” as defamatory: “page 6 #17: ‘In short, Franco stole

two significant company assets – tow winches with a collective value of

$1,225,253 – by including them in a sale transaction involving two personal

entities.’ ” The special verdict form then asked, “Has Mr. Franco proven that one

or more Defendants acted in concert with one another on his claims for

defamation?”, to which the jury answered “yes.” In response to the prompt, “If

Yes, identify which Defendant(s),” the jury identified MMS, MacCap, and

Bachteler.

                                          7
No. 84292-7-I/8

       Next, the jury found Franco had proven the elements of tortious

interference with contractual relations. In response to the question “what are the

improper mean(s) and/or improper purpose(s) you found supporting this [tortious

interference] claim?”, the jury answered, “Jury instruction 26(a): defaming Mr.

Franco.” The jury found the same three defendants, MMS, MacCap, and

Bachteler, had acted in concert to tortiously interfere with Franco’s employment

contract.

       The jury awarded Franco total damages of $75.1 million for both the

defamation and tortious interference claims. However, because the jury’s special

verdict form identified the defamatory statement as one protected by the litigation

privilege, the court granted MacQuarie’s motion for a directed verdict on the

claims of defamation and tortious interference.

       The court denied Franco’s motions to amend the judgment and for

reconsideration. Franco timely appeals.

                                    DISCUSSION

       On appeal, Franco challenges the following rulings by the trial court:

(1) directing the verdict on his claims of defamation and tortious interference with

contractual relations based on the litigation privilege; (2) declining to give his

proposed jury instruction regarding the duty of a dual fiduciary; (3) giving a jury

instruction about a witness and her notes; and (4) admitting evidence of an

investigation by attorney Perisho that MacQuarie had claimed was privileged

during discovery. We address each in turn.

                                           8
No. 84292-7-I/9

   I.      Application of the Litigation Privilege

        Franco argues the court erred by directing the jury’s defamation and

tortious interference verdicts for MacQuarie and declining to reinstate those

verdicts in his favor. The assignments of error concern the scope of the litigation

privilege and whether MacQuarie waived the privilege.

        We review the application of the privilege de novo. Deatherage v. State,

Examining Bd. of Psychology, 134 Wn.2d 131, 135, 948 P.2d 828 (1997). “The

purpose of the litigation privilege doctrine is to encourage frank, open,

untimorous argument and testimony and to discourage retaliatory, derivative

lawsuits.” Young v. Rayan, 27 Wn. App. 2d 500, 509, 533 P.3d 123 (2023),

review denied, 2 Wn.3d 1008 (2023).

        The doctrine addresses the concern that witnesses may either be

reluctant to come forward to testify in the first place or shade their testimony “and

thus deprive the finder of fact of candid, objective, and undistorted evidence.”

Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 333, 103 S. Ct. 1108, 75 L. Ed. 2d 96 (1983).

While it often arises in the context of a defamation suit, “the chilling effect of

subsequent litigation ‘is the same regardless of the theory on which that

subsequent litigation is based.’ ” Young, 27 Wn. App. 2d at 510 (quoting Bruce v.

Byrne-Stevens & Assocs. Eng’rs, Inc., 113 Wn.2d 123, 132, 776 P.2d 666

(1989)).

        “The rule assumes that false or harmful statements in a judicial

proceeding may be addressed through the use of tools such as sanctions,

contempt, ‘[a] witness’ . . . oath, the hazard of cross-examination, and the threat

                                           9
No. 84292-7-I/10

of prosecution for perjury.’ ” Young, 27 Wn. App. 2d at 510 (quoting Bruce, 113

Wn.2d at 126). “In part because the privilege assumes that improper conduct

should not be entirely impossible to address, immunity is not usually extended to

settings where judicial authority lacks ‘the power to discipline as well as strike

from the record statements which exceed the bounds of permissible conduct.’ ”

Id. (quoting Twelker v. Shannon & Wilson, Inc., 88 Wn.2d 473, 476, 564 P.2d

1131 (1977)).

       Nonetheless, the Washington Supreme Court has used broad language to

describe the privilege’s scope. Id. “The defense of absolute privilege generally

applies to statements made in the course of judicial proceedings and acts as a

bar to any civil liability.” Deatherage, 134 Wn.2d at 135. Specifically,

“[s]tatements ‘are absolutely privileged if they are pertinent or material to the

redress or relief sought, whether or not the statements are legally sufficient to

obtain that relief.’ ” Young, 27 Wn. App. 2d at 509 (quoting McNeal v. Allen, 95

Wn.2d 265, 267, 621 P.2d 1285 (1980)). But statements having “no connection

whatever” with the litigation are not privileged. RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS

§ 586 cmt. c (Am. Law Inst. 1977), quoted in Demopolis v. Peoples Nat’l Bank of

Wash., 59 Wn. App. 105, 110, 796 P.2d 426 (1990). Connection is not a high

bar; a statement “need not be strictly relevant to any issue” so long as it bears

“some reference to the subject matter of the . . . litigation.” RESTATEMENT

(SECOND) § 586 cmt. c, quoted in Young, 27 Wn. App. 2d at 509.

       Here, Franco argues that MMS, not MacCap, filed the suit in Delaware,

and because MacCap was neither a party nor a witness in the Delaware

                                         10
No. 84292-7-I/11

proceeding, it cannot be immunized by the litigation privilege and is liable for its

concerted action with MMS, as the jury found. MacQuarie disagrees and argues

that if MacCap did not make the statements, it cannot be held liable for making

them, or, alternatively, if MacCap did make those statements, then MacCap is

covered by the litigation privilege. We conclude that the privilege applies because

the sole statement the jury found was the basis for the defamation and tortious

interference claims was made in the course of a judicial proceeding and cannot

be the basis for any liability in a collateral case.

       Franco argues that the litigation privilege shields the defamer, not the

statement, but cites no Washington authority in support. Instead, Franco cites an

1876 case from Massachusetts for the proposition that the litigation privilege

does “not apply to a stranger to the suit.” But in that case, the acts that were the

basis for liability, subornation of perjury, were not statements made in a legal

proceeding. Rice v. Coolidge, 121 Mass. 393, 394 (1876). A wife had sued her

husband for divorce in Iowa based on alleged adultery, and the woman with

whom the adultery was alleged then sued defendants in Massachusetts for

suborning false testimony to support the adultery charges. Id. Like the statement

at issue in the present case, the perjured statements in Rice were protected by

the litigation privilege. Id. at 395. However, as to the third parties’ acts suborning

the perjured statements, the Rice court held, “[T]hese reasons [justifying the

litigation privilege] do not apply to a stranger to the suit, who procures and

suborns false witnesses, and the rule should not be extended beyond those

cases which are within its reasons.” Id.

                                           11
No. 84292-7-I/12

        Franco also points to the court’s reasoning in a 1939 federal case, Ewald

v. Lane, that if A induces B to act, “the fact that the law gives an immunity to B

need not make A immune.” 104 F.2d 222, 224 (D.C. Cir. 1939). In Ewald, a

married woman sued several defendants, including her husband, for defamation

by making false charges of adultery against her in a divorce proceeding. Id. at

222. The issue was whether the defendants other than the husband were subject

to liability if they were alleged to be co-conspirators with the husband, who the

plaintiff conceded was immune from suit. Id. at 222. But in Ewald, the court noted

that “each defendant took part in the process of calumny,” so “the question was

whether to hold third parties liable for their own acts.” Id. at 223 (emphasis

added).

        Here, while MacCap was not a party to the Delaware action, unlike in

Ewald or in Rice, where the basis for liability was defendants’ own separate acts

outside of the judicial proceedings (calumny and suborning perjury, respectively),

MacCap did not engage in any act separate from the Delaware lawsuit that is the

basis for its liability. 8 Instead, the only basis the jury found for MacCap’s liability

for both defamation and tortious interference with contractual relations was the

statement about two tow winches Franco “stole,” which was made in the

“Delaware filing” 9—that is, in the course of judicial proceedings. And the

        8 To the extent MacCap may be vicariously liable for MMS’s acts, MacCap’s liability is

predicated on MMS being liable. RCW 4.22.030 (if more than one person is liable . . . the liability
of such persons shall be joint and several).
        9 Franco also argues that Laun v. Union Elec. Co. of Mo., 166 S.W.2d 1065 (1942),

supports him. In Laun, defendants provided allegedly false information to two individuals, who

                                                12
No. 84292-7-I/13

statement was pertinent to the relief MMS sought in the Delaware action as it

was part of the factual basis for MMS’s claims against Franco.

        Under Washington law, the privilege is absolute and “applies to

statements made in the course of judicial proceedings and acts as a bar to any

civil liability.” Deatherage, 134 Wn.2d at 135, quoted in Young, 27 Wn. App. 2d at

510-11 (emphasis added in Young); Twelker, 88 Wn.2d at 475 (“The defense of

absolute privilege applies to statements made in the course of judicial

proceedings and avoids all liability.”) (emphasis added). 10

        Franco also argues that “[b]ecause no public policy is advanced by

extending immunity to MacCap—a non-participant to the litigation acting in

concert with a party—the [c]ourt should hold it is not entitled to absolute

immunity.” Franco relies on Mason v. Mason, in which Division Two suggested a

then incorporated the information into an amended complaint filed in federal district court against
plaintiff. See Murphy v. A.A. Mathews, a Div. of CRS Grp. Eng’rs, Inc., 841 S.W.2d 671, 676 (Mo.
1992) (examining Laun). As discussed in Murphy, the Laun court refused to absolutely immunize
the defendants and held that the “plaintiff could recover if he proved the defendants’ statements
were not in good faith but were instead willfully and knowingly used for the purpose of
defamation.” Id. at 677. As the Missouri Supreme Court recognized, Washington’s witness
immunity law and Missouri’s are not the same: our law has extended the privilege, where
Missouri law allows only a narrow restriction. See id. at 678, 680. Regardless, unlike the present
case, where the defaming statements were made in a judicial proceeding, the statements at issue
in Laun were made to other parties who subsequently sued Laun. Laun, 166 S.W.2d at 1071. The
Laun court reversed the lower court’s application of the litigation privilege because it “should not
be extended so as to include the instant defendants and the position they are alleged to occupy in
the circumstances.” Id. (citing reasoning from Rice and Ewald).
           10 MacQuarie argues Franco’s arguments are barred by the invited error doctrine

because it never distinguished among the defendants in argument about the litigation privilege
and it was plaintiffs who proposed that the jury not be instructed about the privilege and the court
direct a verdict if the jury relied on the Delaware complaint to find the defendants liable. Under the
invited error doctrine, a party may not materially contribute to an erroneous application of law at
trial and then complain of it on appeal. In re A.L.K., 196 Wn.2d 686, 694-95, 478 P.3d 63 (2020).
To determine whether the doctrine applies, the court considers whether the defendant
affirmatively assented to the error, materially contributed to it, or benefited from it. Id. at 695.
However, as we resolve the litigation privilege issue on the merits, we do not reach the issue of
invited error.

                                                 13
No. 84292-7-I/14

third element to the litigation privilege analysis: whether immunity furthers public

policy under the particular facts of the case. 19 Wn. App. 2d 803, 834, 497 P.3d

431 (2021), review denied, 199 Wn.2d 1005, 506 P.3d 638 (2022); see also Scott

v. Am. Express Nat’l Bank, 22 Wn. App. 2d 258, 265-66, 514 P.3d 695, review

denied, 200 Wn.2d 1021, 520 P.3d 976 (2022).

        However, more recently, in Young, we declined to follow Mason, stating

that we “do not recognize a case-by-case ‘public policy exception’ to the litigation

privilege doctrine that looks to a defendant’s intent.” Young, 27 Wn. App. 2d at

514. In Young, we explained that as our Supreme Court reasoned, “the privilege

already serves a compelling public policy in any given case as it is currently

constituted: it ensures that witnesses, parties, and their counsel may speak freely

and openly in court proceedings without fear of ensuing litigation.” 27 Wn. App.

2d at 514 (citing Deatherage, 134 Wn.2d at 137). 11 As Young is based on our

Supreme Court precedent and we agree with its sound reasoning, we reject

Franco’s arguments based on public policies specific to this case.

        11 Franco contends that Washington State policy makes tortfeasors who act in concert

jointly and severally liable, the law should provide a remedy to the injured, and MacCap and MMS
are separate entities. Even without examining a third element of the litigation privilege as
suggested in Mason, Mason and Scott are distinguishable. In Mason, where plaintiff’s claims
against her former husband included abuse of process and emotional distress, the court
reasoned the litigation privilege did not apply to her former husband and his attorney allegedly
conspiring to file to modify their parenting plan as a means to control and abuse her, as such a
purpose was not pertinent to modifying a parenting plan. 19 Wn. App. 2d at 840 (abuse of
process claim), 843 (intentional infliction of emotional distress claim). Here, the statement the jury
found to be defamatory was part of, and pertinent to, the Delaware complaint. In Scott, the court
declined to apply the privilege to a law firm that was acting in its capacity as a collection agency
when conducting the acts upon which its liability under the Washington Consumer Protection Act
was allegedly based. 22 Wn. App. 2d at 270. Here, Franco’s claim was defamation, so the
defendants’ liability hinged on statements, not conduct, as in Scott.

                                                 14
No. 84292-7-I/15

        Finally, Franco argues that because MMS voluntary dismissed its

complaint, the Delaware court could not have issued any sanctions, and,

therefore, the litigation privilege “does not apply even as to MMS.” This argument

is based on Delaware Chancery Court Rule 11(c)(1)(A), which allows a party to

avoid sanctions by withdrawing or amending a filing within 21 days. Franco

argues that “[e]ven if the Delaware court had theoretical authority to sanction

MMS sua sponte, such authority was exceedingly unlikely to be exercised,” and

thus, the litigation privilege should not apply.

        This argument is unavailing. Franco provides no authority that allows such

an exception to the litigation privilege. To the contrary, in Young, we emphasized

that

        [T]he privilege, by design, applies where bad behavior may be
        addressed through means not always available outside the
        courtroom, such as sanctions, contempt, striking of testimony,
        cross-examination, the threat of perjury, and professional discipline.
        And the effects of improper statements on the progress of the
        lawsuit in which they are made may be addressed through direct
        appeal if the trial court errs in its approach. Those harmed by
        privileged statements are correspondingly not without recourse,
        even if redress is imperfect. The litigation privilege accepts that
        imperfection in pursuit of freer speech and conduct in judicial
        proceedings.

27 Wn. App. 2d at 514-15. Thus, we do not consider whether, in a particular

case, a court actually could or did sanction the “bad behavior” that is immunized

by the privilege. 12

        12 Franco relies on only one case from another jurisdiction for the proposition that the

Delaware court’s ability to sanction was limited, Pino v. Bank of New York, 121 So.3d 23, 43 (Fla.
2013). In rejecting Franco’s claim that the privilege should not apply because MMS dismissed its
complaint, the trial court noted that under Delaware’s Rule 11(c)(1)(B), sanctions may be

                                                15
No. 84292-7-I/16

         In sum, because the jury found MMS, MacCap, and Bachteler joint

tortfeasors liable for defamation and tortious interference with contractual

relations solely based on a statement made in, and pertinent to, MMS’s Delaware

lawsuit, the statement is absolutely privileged. The trial court did not err in

directing the verdict in the MacQuarie defendants’ favor on the defamation and

tortious interference claims.

   II.      Dual Fiduciary Jury Instruction

         Franco argues the court erred by not instructing the jury about the duty of

a dual fiduciary. MacQuarie counters that Franco’s proposed instruction

misstated Delaware law and the jury was properly instructed without it. We agree

with MacQuarie.

         “Jury instructions are sufficient when they allow counsel to argue their

theory of the case, are not misleading, and when read as a whole properly inform

the trier of fact of the applicable law.” Bodin v. City of Stanwood, 130 Wn.2d 726,

732, 927 P.2d 240 (1996), quoted in Hendrickson v. Moses Lake Sch. Dist., 192

Wn.2d 269, 280, 428 P.3d 1197 (2018). We review de novo a trial court’s refusal

to provide a requested jury instruction where the refusal is based on a ruling of

law, but a court’s refusal to give an instruction based on factual reasons is

reviewed for an abuse of discretion. State v. Arbogast, 199 Wn.2d 356, 365, 506

P.3d 1238 (2022) (citations omitted).

imposed even after claims are withdrawn. See Fairthorne Maint. Corp. v. Ramunno, No. 2124-
VCS, 2007 WL 2214318, at *10 (Del. Ch. July 20, 2007) (unpublished).

                                             16
No. 84292-7-I/17

       We must reverse if an instruction erroneously states the law and

prejudices a party. Hendrickson, 192 Wn.2d at 281. But a “trial court need never

give a requested instruction that is erroneous in any respect.” Vogel v. Alaska

S.S. Co., 69 Wn.2d 497, 503, 419 P.2d 141 (1966), quoted in Hendrickson, 192

Wn.2d at 278.

       Franco argued that a dual fiduciary instruction was necessary because as

a board member of both HMS and its holding companies, such as Holdco1, and

MIHI, Bachteler owed conflicting fiduciary duties. In January 2019, MIHI sued

HMS’s parent, Holdco1, to foreclose on its PIK loan to HMS. The directors of

Holdco1, including Bachteler, were the same as the directors of HMS. At a

February 2019 board meeting, the directors failed to pass a motion to defend

against MIHI’s suit. Because HMS failed to defend, MIHI obtained a $68 million

default judgment, and Holdco1’s sole assent, its HMS stock, was sold at auction.

       Franco claimed Bachteler breached his fiduciary duties because of his role

on the HMS board and his decision that HMS should not defend against MIHI’s

lawsuit. Franco’s proposed instruction stated:

               A dual fiduciary conflict exists if an individual owes multiple
       fiduciary obligations and the interests associated with those
       obligations are not aligned. Such a situation creates an inherent
       conflict of interest. There is no safe harbor for such divided
       loyalties. A fiduciary who takes action in such circumstances
       breaches fiduciary duties.

       The trial court declined to give this proposed instruction, reasoning that

the instruction as proposed amounted to a directed verdict on Franco’s claim of

breach of fiduciary duty by Bachteler. Instead, it instructed the jury regarding

                                          17
No. 84292-7-I/18

fiduciary duties, who owed fiduciary duties, and the business judgment rule, i.e.,

the presumption that, when making a business decision, directors are presumed

to have acted in good faith and, if the presumption is rebutted, the burden shifts

to a director who must then prove entire fairness.

       Delaware law provides that “[t]here is no ‘safe harbor’ for such divided

loyalties in Delaware.” Weinberger v. UOP, Inc., 457 A.2d 701, 710 (Del. 1983).

However, “[w]hen directors of a Delaware corporation are on both sides of a

transaction, they are required to demonstrate their utmost good faith and the

most scrupulous inherent fairness of the bargain.” Id. Franco argues that “[t]he

mere existence of such a dual fiduciary conflict rebuts the business judgment

rule’s presumption, and requires the dual fiduciary to prove the transaction was

entirely fair.” Br. of Appellant at 44. This argument states the law correctly, but

that is not the statement of law in Franco’s proposed Instruction 12.

       Instead, proposed instruction 12 stated that a dual fiduciary was an

“inherent conflict of interest” and any “action in such circumstances breaches

fiduciary duties.” Franco knew this was incorrect: at oral argument on his

proposed instruction, he offered to remove the proposed instruction’s last

sentence.

       Moreover, the court’s instructions, taken as a whole, correctly stated

Delaware law regarding fiduciary duties (instruction 11), who owed them

(instruction 13), the business judgment rule, and entire fairness (instruction 15).

See Hendrickson, 192 Wn.2d at 280. Therefore, the court properly refused to

                                         18
No. 84292-7-I/19

give an erroneous statement of Delaware law, and its instructions, taken as a

whole, properly instructed the jury regarding Delaware’s fiduciary duty law. 13

   III.      Third Party Witness’s Deposition Testimony and Notes

          Carol Simmons is a consultant who was representing a competitor of

HMS, Keystone Shipping, that offered to manage HMS. Franco had disclosed

Simmons as a witness in 2019, during discovery. MacQuarie filed a pre-trial

motion in limine to exclude Simmons’s deposition testimony, and the court

denied the motion. On appeal, Franco challenges the court’s rulings and a jury

instruction concerning Simmons’s testimony and her notes, which were not

produced until mid-trial.

          Before trial, Simmons provided Franco with a declaration stating that a

MacQuarie executive, Larry Handen, told her that Franco “ ‘was a crook and a

criminal and that he would go to jail and be in an orange jumpsuit’ ” and that

Handen “looked forward to visiting Mr. Franco on his first day in jail and laughing

at him.” Simmons’s declaration stated that Handen threatened her and her client

and “told us to stand down.”

          MacQuarie requested Franco to “[p]roduce all documents concerning or

reflecting communications with Carol Simmons” in January 2020. While Simmons

was Franco’s witness, she was a third party to the litigation and represented by

separate counsel. Because Simmons was a Florida resident, the court did not

          13 We need not address MacQuarie’s argument that Bachteler was not conflicted in the

first place because Holdco1 was an LLC and its bylaws enumerated interested decisions, which
did not include decisions to retain counsel.

                                                19
No. 84292-7-I/20

have subpoena power over her. Nevertheless, in February 2020, Simmons

agreed to sit for a videotaped deposition, while she was in Pennsylvania.

Simmons testified that she had taken notes during Handen’s call on “the little

white pad of paper that’s next to your bed in the . . . hotel.” While the parties

dispute exactly why the deposition ended, 14 they agree that afterwards,

Simmons’s attorney sent a letter advising the parties that Simmons “will not

appear voluntarily for another deposition in this matter.” MacQuarie did not

attempt to obtain the notes Simmons mentioned through subpoena.

          MacQuarie moved in limine to exclude Simmons’s deposition testimony as

hearsay, irrelevant, and because of unfair prejudice under ER 403. In particular,

it argued that Handen’s alleged statements to Simmons were not admissible

under the former testimony exception to the hearsay rule, ER 804(b)(1), 15

because MacQuarie “did not have an adequate opportunity to fully develop

Simmons’s testimony by cross examination.” The court denied the motion in

limine.

          At trial, MacQuarie renewed its ER 804(b)(1) objection to Franco’s playing

Simmons’s videotaped deposition for the jury. Franco responded that Simmons’s

          14 MacQuarie contends Simmons requested that the deposition end because she “had a

blood sugar issue.” Franco suggests Simmons refused to voluntarily appear for another
deposition because MacQuarie refused her a lunch break.
        15 ER 804(b) states as follows:

          (1) Former Testimony. Testimony given as a witness at another hearing of the
          same or a different proceeding, or in a deposition taken in compliance with law in
          the course of the same or another proceeding, if the party against whom the
          testimony is now offered, or, in a civil action or proceeding, a predecessor in
          interest, had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony by direct,
          cross, or redirect examination.

                                                  20
No. 84292-7-I/21

deposition was complete, and if not, it was MacQuarie’s responsibility to

reschedule it. Franco further argued that Simmons was unavailable because she

was outside the court’s subpoena power, and MacQuarie had chosen not to

attempt to subpoena her testimony and agreed to close discovery. The court

agreed with MacQuarie: “either she makes herself available . . . for one hour on a

deposition, or – or she’s not unavailable.”

       Thereafter, Simmons’s second deposition took place during a recess from

the trial on June 1, 2022. MacQuarie asked Simmons if she took notes during her

call with Handen. She answered that she took “some at the time, and I took some

later,” and she had her notes with her. MacQuarie asked for the notes.

Simmons’s attorney said that he had the “email th[at] Ms. Simmons prepared”

and that he would send it to the parties. This e-mail, which Simmons had sent to

the chairman of the company she was representing, Keystone Shipping,

described the call with Handen in detail and was dated February 24, 2019, three

days after her call with Handen.

       MacQuarie then asked Simmons if she had notes on a hotel pad.

Simmons said she did and that she had them with her. MacQuarie asked for

them, and Simmons’s attorney said, “I will confer with counsel for the other side

and see if they agree.”

       Back before the trial court, on June 8, 2022, MacQuarie reported that

Simmons still refused to produce the hotel pad notes. Franco stressed that he did

not control Simmons. The court acknowledged that MacQuarie should have

subpoenaed the notes. Further, the court said that while it wanted to order

                                         21
No. 84292-7-I/22

Simmons to produce the notes, recognizing it had no authority to do so, it

“decided the way to handle it was through an instruction.” The court stated: “Let

me be clear that the remedy, if anything – I’m not going to preclude her

testimony, but I may give an adverse inference instruction.” The court asked

MacQuarie’s counsel to prepare an order, then Franco’s counsel said he would

“just call [Simmons’s counsel] and see if he’ll turn [the notes] over.”

        No notes were produced before Simmons’s deposition testimony was

played for the jury on June 8, 2022. That same day, during a break in playing

Simmons’s testimony to the jury, Franco advised the court that he had contacted

Simmons’s attorney, who promised to send the notes. 16

        Later that day, photographs of two sets of notes arrived by e-mail to

Franco’s attorney. The notes on a hotel pad do not corroborate Simmons’s

deposition testimony about Handen saying “crook,” “criminal,” “jail,” and “orange

jumpsuit.” However, the other notes, the “loose-leaf” notes, do corroborate

Simmons’s testimony that Handen used those words.

        The next day, June 9, 2022, MacQuarie objected that because Simmons’s

testimony at her first deposition mentioned only notes on a hotel pad, the loose-

leaf notes were not authentic, and all of Simmons’s testimony, or at least those

portions regarding Handen, should be disregarded. The court asked Franco to

“[s]uggest some remedy to me if it’s not to tell the jurors to completely disregard

        16 Franco’s counsel said he sent “the draft boil[er plate] order” and asked Simmons’s

attorney to “[p]lease comply with that.” The court said that was “disconcerting” because the court
said it wouldn’t sign an order after it “had thought better of it and decided the way to handle it was
through an instruction.”

                                                 22
No. 84292-7-I/23

her testimony,” because “[t]here is a prejudice here by [MacQuarie] not having

[the notes] so he could cross-examin[e] [Simmons].” The court further explained

that it “wanted the jury to have an opportunity for themselves to see as much of

[Simmons] as they could and judge from it as they could.”

       Franco answered that the court could not “take [Simmons] out as a

witness” because “[t]here is no authority for it. [MacQuarie] did not subpoena

[Simmons].” Franco emphasized that he did not control Simmons. Then,

MacQuarie suggested, and Franco agreed, that only the hotel pad notes should

be admitted. Franco’s counsel promised, “I won’t say that there were other notes

out there to try and make a different impression [at closing].” Ultimately, the court

said it was “looking for remedies,” and counsel for Franco answered:

       Here’s the remedy. A remedy. The testimony is in.[17] The email,
       which we both saw for the first time that day and both could cross-
       examine her on, is in.[18] Her other notes, the long version [loose-
       leaf] notes are out. I will not mention them in closing. The other
       notes, the one from the [hotel] pads, are in.

The court asked MacQuarie if it wanted the hotel pad notes or an instruction that

the witness would not voluntarily produce her notes. MacQuarie said it wanted

both and it was “going to argue about it [at closing].” The court said “Okay,” and

Franco said, “That’s fine. I’ve got no problem with that, Your Honor, given the

circumstances.”

       17 This refers to the video tape testimony from Simmons’s first deposition, which had

already been played to the jury.
        18 This refers to the e-mail Simmons wrote to Keystone Shipping on February 24, 2019,

describing her call with Handen.

                                              23
No. 84292-7-I/24

        When the court instructed the jury the next day, it gave instruction 9

regarding certain exhibits that had limitations. 19 Section 2, titled “Notes of Carol

Simmons,” stated that “Ms. Carol Simmons would not voluntarily produce the

notes that were referenced in her deposition testimony. Following court

intervention, she produced the notes marked as Exhibit 1041,” referring to the

hotel pad notes.

        At closing argument that same day, June 10, MacQuarie argued that

Simmons’s hotel pad notes did not corroborate her testimony. He explained that

was why “the judge instructed you as part of her jury instructions – the only way

we got it was by court intervention.” Later in his closing, Franco stated that “the

notes [MacQuarie] referred to were not the notes relating to the call . . .

[Simmons] was referring to different notes.” MacQuarie objected, and the court

sustained the objection.

            A. Trial management and improper sanction

        On appeal, neither party suggests a violation of CR 26 or CR 37. Instead,

Franco argues that the court abused its inherent authority to sanction litigation

conduct because it made no finding of bad faith before admitting the hotel pad

notes, excluding the loose-leaf notes, and instructing the jury. MacQuarie argues

there was no sanction, only trial management decisions, but if the court’s

decisions did constitute a sanction, the record adequately supports finding that

         19 For example, section 1 of the instruction dealt with an AlixPartners report. Section 3

dealt with demonstratives.

                                                 24
No. 84292-7-I/25

Franco acted in bad faith with respect to Simmons’s notes. We conclude that

Franco was not sanctioned.

       Generally, trial courts have broad discretion to make a variety of trial

management decisions, ranging from the mode and order of examining

witnesses and presenting evidence, to the admissibility of evidence, and to

maintaining the order and security of the courtroom. State v. Dye, 178 Wn.2d

541, 547, 309 P.3d 1192 (2013); ER 611. A court should ordinarily rely on court

rules to control litigation conduct. Wash. State Physicians Ins. Exch. & Ass’n v.

Fisons Corp., 122 Wn.2d 299, 340 n.72, 858 P.2d 1054 (1993) (Fisons) (citing

Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 50, 111 S. Ct. 2123, 2135, 115 L. Ed. 2d

27 (1991)). Trial courts also have “ ‘inherent authority to sanction litigation

conduct . . . upon a finding of bad faith.’ ” Geonerco, Inc. v. Grand Ridge

Properties IV, LLC, 159 Wn. App. 536, 544, 248 P.3d 1047 (2011) (quoting State

v. S.H., 102 Wn. App. 468, 475, 8 P.3d 1058 (2000)). Such sanctions are

appropriate “ ‘if an act affects the integrity of the court and, [if] left unchecked,

would encourage future abuses.’ ” Geonerco, 159 Wn. App. at 544 (quoting S.H.,

102 Wn. App. at 475 (internal quotation marks omitted)). “ ‘[I]nappropriate and

improper’ is tantamount to a finding of bad faith,” but if a trial court fails to enter a

finding that amounts to bad faith, remand is required. S.H., 102 Wn. App. at 475

(quoting Wilson v. Henkle, 45 Wn. App. 162, 175, 724 P.2d 1069 (1986)).

       We will not reverse a court’s trial management decisions, even if we

disagree, unless the decision is manifestly unreasonable or based on untenable

grounds or untenable reasons. Dye, 178 Wn.2d at 548. We review decisions

                                           25
No. 84292-7-I/26

either denying or granting sanctions for an abuse of discretion. Fisons, 122

Wn.2d at 338.

       Franco contends that the court abused its discretion because it made no

finding of bad faith, and, even if Simmons changed her mind and refused to send

the notes, that is “not even bad manners, much less bad faith,” because

Simmons was a nonparty whose notes MacQuarie never subpoenaed. Thus, the

prejudice the court identified—MacQuarie’s inability to cross-examine Simmons

regarding her notes—“was a self-inflicted wound” that was “entirely untethered

from Franco’s litigation conduct.” But whether the court was required to make a

finding of bad faith depends on whether the court imposed a sanction.

       Here, the court admitted the hotel pad notes, that Simmons referenced at

her first deposition. It also admitted her e-mail to her client dated February 24

that she referenced at her second deposition. See ER 901(10) (an e-mail is an

illustration of satisfactory authentication). But the court excluded the loose-leaf

notes Simmons had never specifically referenced during either deposition and

did not produce until after her deposition testimony had been played for the jury.

In other words, the court admitted the evidence Simmons had described, and

thus authenticated, and excluded the evidence Simmons did not describe or

otherwise authenticate. Requiring proper authentication to admit evidence is not

untenable. ER 901; ER 902. And a court “should ordinarily rely on the [civil] rules”

to control litigation conduct. Fisons, 122 Wn.2d at 340 n.72. The court asked the

                                         26
No. 84292-7-I/27

parties to suggest a remedy, the least “severe sanction,”20 and it followed the

remedy ultimately proposed by and agreed to by Franco. Thus, the court did not

impose a sanction, so it did not need to enter a finding of bad faith. 21

        Therefore, we conclude the court did not abuse its discretion because its

decisions about which notes to admit and which to exclude were neither

manifestly unreasonable nor based on untenable grounds. 22 See, e.g., Air Serv

Corp. v. Flight Servs. & Sys., No. 71103-2-I, slip op. at 14 (Wash. Ct. App. Apr. 6,

2015) (unpublished), https://www.courts.wa.gov/ opinions/ pdf/711032.pdf

(exclusion of witness was not a sanction where the court refused to allow the

witness to testify remotely after it found the witness was not on vacation). 23

            B. Impermissible comment and instructional error

        Franco argues the court made an impermissible comment on the evidence

because the “two actions” of “selectively” admitting Simmons’s notes and the

court’s instruction describing Simmons’s refusal to produce notes “stacked the

        20 Except for this one reference to a sanction, the court spoke in terms of a “remedy.”

Only Franco spoke in terms of a “sanction.”
        21 The authority cited in Franco’s reply brief does not help him. Carroll v. Akebono Brake

Corp. involved CR 37, which Franco’s opening brief conceded is not at issue here. See 22 Wn.
App. 2d 845, 862, 514 P.3d 720 (2022), review denied sub nom. Carroll v. Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.,
200 Wn.2d 1023, 522 P.3d 45 (2023).
        22 MacQuarie argues Franco had custody and control over Simmons’s notes because

Franco had the “practical ability” to obtain them. The case MacQuarie cites, Diaz v. Washington
State Migrant Council, 165 Wn. App. 59, 78, 265 P.3d 956 (2011), does not support this
argument because it defines “control” as “the legal right to obtain the documents” and places on
the party seeking discovery the burden of proving “practical ability.” Here, MacQuarie never
suggests Franco subpoenaed Simmons’s notes, which could have given it a legal right to obtain
them. And the parties acknowledge the court did not have subpoena power over Simmons. For
the same reason, while the court found MacQuarie was prejudiced by not having Simmons’s
notes with which to cross-examine her, it is undisputed that MacQuarie did not attempt to
subpoena the notes, so we need not determine whether the court’s finding of prejudice was
“tantamount” to a finding of bad faith on Franco’s part.
        23 Where necessary for a reasoned decision, this court may cite an unpublished opinion.

GR 14.1(c).

                                                27
No. 84292-7-I/28

deck against Simmons” and “effectively suggested that Simmons had been

compelled to provide notes that contradicted her testimony.” Br. of Appellant at

67-68.

         Washington’s Constitution, article 4, section 16, states that “[j]udges shall

not charge juries with respect to matters of fact, nor comment thereon, but shall

declare the law.” “A statement by the court constitutes a comment on the

evidence if the court’s attitude toward the merits of the case or the court’s

evaluation relative to the disputed issue is inferable from the statement.” State v.

Lane, 125 Wn.2d 825, 838, 889 P.2d 929 (1995). “The touchstone of error in a

trial court’s comment on the evidence is whether the feeling of the trial court as to

the truth value of the testimony of a witness has been communicated to the jury.”

Id. We review jury instructions de novo to determine whether the trial court

improperly commented on the evidence. 24 State v. Levy, 156 Wn.2d 709, 721,

132 P.3d 1076 (2006).

         The court’s decisions about which notes to admit or exclude are not “[a]

statement by the court.” Lane, 125 Wn.2d at 838. As to the court’s instruction

itself, whether it was an impermissible comment depends on whether “the court’s

attitude toward the merits of the case or the court’s evaluation relative to the

disputed issue is inferable from the statement.” Id. Here, the fact that Simmons

did not produce the notes voluntarily was not disputed, so the court did not

         24 MacQuarie argues Franco waived this issue by not objecting below. But “ ‘[s]ince a

comment on the evidence violates a constitutional prohibition, [a] failure to object or move for a
mistrial does not foreclose [him or] her from raising this issue on appeal.’ ” State v. Becker, 132
Wn.2d 54, 64, 935 P.2d 1321 (1997) (quoting State v. Lampshire, 74 Wn.2d 888, 893, 447 P.2d
727 (1968)).

                                                 28
No. 84292-7-I/29

unconstitutionally charge the jury regarding a disputed fact. But Simmons’s

credibility was at issue, and MacQuarie used the court’s instruction to further

impeach her credibility in its closing argument.

       In Lane, witness Blake testified about conversations he had in jail with two

of the three defendants in a murder trial. 125 Wn.2d at 835. Blake’s credibility

was a key issue in the case. Id. at 837. Blake had previously worked for the

police as a paid informant, and there was conflicting testimony about whether his

reduced sentence and early release were based on his cooperation with police,

which was revealed while Blake was in jail and placed him in jeopardy, or

whether he made up the story in return for money and favorable treatment. Id. at

836. Therefore, before instructing the jury, the court read a statement regarding

the reason for Blake’s early release:

       “The sentence of William Blake was reduced to three months
       confinement and release date of June 8, 1988 given. The reasons
       advanced by the prosecutor and accepted by the judge related to
       Mr. Blake’s safety and an inadvertent disclosure . . . of Mr. Blake’s
       cooperation with authorities given to an unidentified person.
       Whether that last statement proves or does not prove anything is a
       matter for the jurors.
              Now instruction on the law. The testimony of Mr. Blake
       regarding prior statements of Mr. Anderson may be considered by
       you in determining Mr. Anderson’s credibility and for no other
       purpose.”

Id. at 837. The Washington Supreme Court in Lane agreed with the Court of

Appeals that the trial court’s remarks were an impermissible comment on the

evidence, but that the error was harmless as to each defendant. Id. at 838.

       By contrast, in Wuth ex rel. Kessler v. Laboratory Corp. of America, the

trial judge’s repeated statements that the parents of a child who was born with

                                        29
No. 84292-7-I/30

severe birth defects were not at fault and had no legal liability were not

impermissible comments on the evidence. 189 Wn. App. 660, 698, 359 P.3d 841

(2015). The parents’ lack of fault was not disputed at trial, but the defendants

nonetheless argued that the court’s comments bore on their credibility. Id. at 700.

The court disagreed: “the trial court merely articulated the basis for evidentiary

rulings and appropriately instructed the jury on the use of evidence that was

admissible for limited purposes.” Id.; see also Smith v. Behr Process Corp., 113

Wn. App. 306, 335, 54 P.3d 665 (2002) (instructions and the verdict form “clearly

reflect[ed] the trial court’s opinion” as to disputed facts, but court resolved these

issues in its default judgment, so they were not disputed issues at trial).

       Here, the court’s instruction provided no discernible instructive purpose

regarding relevant law. Unlike the court’s comments in Wuth, the court’s

instruction here was not merely a limiting instruction about the appropriate use of

evidence. However, unlike the court’s prefacing statement in Lane about the

reason for Blake’s early release, the court’s instruction here is not an instruction

regarding a disputed fact. See Lane, 125 Wn.2d at 839.

       Franco contends that MacQuarie pointed to the hotel pad notes to argue

Simmons fabricated the conversation with Handen. While MacQuarie’s closing

argument is not a comment by the court, it does underscore the problematic

nature of the court’s instruction. MacQuarie argued that Simmons’s note did not

corroborate her testimony, and it used the court’s instruction to bolster this

                                          30
No. 84292-7-I/31

argument—“the only way we got it was by court intervention.” 25 MacQuarie’s

argument at closing thus draws into focus the possible inference from the court’s

instruction about Simmons’s notes not being voluntarily produced.

        Ultimately, however, any error in the instruction is invited error. The invited

error doctrine “applies when a party takes an affirmative and voluntary action that

induces the trial court to take an action that a party later challenges on appeal.”

Casper v. Esteb Enters., Inc., 119 Wn. App. 759, 771, 82 P.3d 1223 (2004)

(witness’s repeated attempts to violate the court’s pretrial discovery rulings

during his trial testimony caused the trial court to respond in the manner that later

was claimed to be error). Here, after extensive discussion by both parties and the

court about possible remedies regarding the late disclosure of Simmons’s notes,

counsel for Franco stated, “There can be an instruction that [Simmons] didn’t

voluntarily produce them [i.e., the notes]. That’s fine.” Counsel for MacQuarie

stated his desire and intent to make the argument he made at closing, and

counsel for Franco stated he had “no problem with [the instruction’s language],

Your Honor, given the circumstances.” We therefore conclude that the court did

not sanction Franco, and its instruction, while inappropriate, was not an

impermissible comment on the evidence. 26

         25 Franco also argues that the court compounded its error by barring Franco from

explaining that the admitted notes related to an earlier conversation between Simmons and an
HMS bondholder. In fact, the court sustained MacQuarie’s objection to Franco mentioning
“different notes” in his closing argument because Franco had promised he “won’t say that there
were other notes out there.” The court ruled on this issue of admissibility after extensive
argument. Sustaining MacQuarie’s objection was not an abuse of discretion.
         26 Harmless error analysis applies to the constitutional error of a judicial comment on the

evidence. Lane, 125 Wn.2d at 839. If a trial judge’s conduct or remarks constitute a comment on
the evidence, a reviewing court will presume the comments were prejudicial, and the party with

                                                 31
No. 84292-7-I/32

            C. Franco’s RAP 9.13 motion

        After he appealed, Franco filed a RAP 9.13 motion with this court to

review a trial court order denying his motion to supplement the record with

Simmons’s “loose-leaf” notes, which the trial court excluded. 27 Under RAP 9.13,

“[a] party may object to a trial court decision relating to the record by motion in

the appellate court.” A commissioner of this court permitted Franco to file the

notes “[s]olely for purposes of this Court’s consideration of appellants’ argument.”

        Here, Franco argues that seeing the excluded notes is not necessary to

conclude that the sanction lacked a basis in either law or fact, but the notes do

“further underscore” the harm and prejudice to him. MacQuarie’s brief makes no

argument as to the motion, which Franco argues weighs in favor of granting it.

We deny the motion because the descriptions of Simmons’s notes in the record

as designated and the verbatim transcript—both the admitted hotel pad notes

and the excluded loose-leaf notes—are sufficient to enable our review of the

assigned error.

the burden of proof must show that no prejudice resulted unless it affirmatively appears in the
record that no prejudice could have resulted from the comment. Id. at 838-39 (internal citations
omitted). This is the same analysis as in a criminal case. See State v. McPhail, 39 Wash. 199,
202, 81 P. 683 (1905). While there do not appear to be any Washington civil cases in which a
reviewing court determined that the court below had made an impermissible comment on the
evidence and then proceeded to a harmless error or prejudice analysis, here the court’s
instruction referred only to Simmons’s notes, and, at most, the jury could have inferred that her
notes were harmful to her deposition testimony. But the jury saw the hotel pad notes Simmons
referenced in her testimony. And the jury was instructed that “[y]ou are the sole judges of the
credibility of each witness, and of the value or weight to be given to the testimony of each
witness.” Juries are presumed to follow the court’s instructions. State v. Grisby, 97 Wn.2d 493,
509, 647 P.2d 6 (1982).
          27 Franco’s RAP 9.13 motion also addressed e-mails between the parties and the court

below. However, Franco withdrew his motion as to any documents other than the notes.

                                                32
No. 84292-7-I/33

   IV.      Attorney-Client Privilege and Perisho’s Investigation

         Perisho is an employment attorney who was hired by the two independent

directors of HMS to investigate Franco’s alleged misconduct, which was first

raised in AlixPartners’ report. During discovery, MacQuarie asserted privilege as

to Perisho’s report to the directors and certain communications relating to his

investigation, but produced other documents relating to his retention, the scope

of his investigation, and his interactions with Franco and his attorneys. Before

trial, Franco moved to exclude any evidence withheld during discovery under a

claim of privilege, particularly all evidence relating to Perisho and his

investigation of Franco.

         The court distinguished between evidence of an investigation and the fact

that Perisho interviewed Franco. It ruled that MacQuarie “may state that Mr.

Perisho interviewed Mr. Franco” but could not “argue or have witnesses state

that the investigation was conducted by independent directors.” The court

reasoned that because Franco had a negative view of the Alix Partners report,

MacQuarie could introduce evidence that they tried to remedy this by hiring

Perisho.

         Accordingly, at trial, Perisho was not a witness, and no evidence of the

substance of his advice to the independent directors was offered. However,

Franco advised the court he intended to call the attorney who represented

Franco during Perisho’s investigation, Kornfeld, to testify about Perisho’s

interview of Franco. The court noted that redacting the word “investigation” from

exhibits the parties used in examining Kornfeld might be confusing. The court

                                          33
No. 84292-7-I/34

suggested that the word “investigation” be replaced with the word “interview” in

the documents. Although Franco had objected to admission of this evidence

pretrial, at this point both parties agreed to the redactions and alterations and

both parties questioned Kornfeld about Perisho’s interview of Franco.

       At closing argument, in discussing the fact that Franco had been fired a

second time by the independent directors, MacQuarie invited Franco’s counsel to

explain “how the heck [the directors] came – and Perisho and everybody else

came to the same conclusion, that [embezzlement] was grounds for termination.”

MacQuarie further argued to the jury that “[t]he independent directors who

interviewed him found multiple instances of highly inappropriate behavior.

Multiple instances.”

       Franco challenges the court’s ruling admitting evidence that Perisho

interviewed Franco, arguing that the attorney-client privilege “may not be used as

both a sword and shield,” citing Pappas v. Holloway, 114 Wn.2d 198, 208, 787

P.2d 30 (1990). MacQuarie argues that Franco’s argument is barred by either

waiver or invited error and his shield and his sword argument is “not implicated.”

We conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion by excluding evidence of

materials that were designated as privileged when produced.

       The attorney-client privilege applies to communications and advice

between an attorney and client and extends to documents that contain privileged

communications. Pappas, 114 Wn.2d at 203. Its purpose is to encourage free

and open attorney-client communication by assuring the client that

communication will not be disclosed. State v. Chervenell, 99 Wn.2d 309, 316,

                                         34
No. 84292-7-I/35

662 P.2d 836 (1983). The privilege “must be strictly limited to the purpose for

which it exists” because its application may result in the exclusion of evidence

that is otherwise relevant and material. Dike v. Dike, 75 Wn.2d 1, 11, 448 P.2d

490 (1968).

       The privilege is not absolute and is subject to recognized exceptions. Id. at

11. One such recognized exception occurs when an attorney’s client sues the

attorney for legal malpractice. Pappas, 114 Wn.2d at 204. For example, in

Pappas, an attorney, Pappas, sued former clients, the Holloways, to recover

fees, and the Holloways filed a counterclaim for legal malpractice. Id. at 200.

Pappas then filed third-party complaints against all other attorneys who had

represented the Holloways in the same litigation. Id. at 201. The court affirmed a

trial court ruling compelling the third-party defendant attorneys to produce

documents protected by the attorney-client privilege because their former clients,

the Holloways, had sued Pappas for legal malpractice and could not “at the same

time conceal from him communications which have a direct bearing on this

issue.” Id. at 208. To rule otherwise, the Pappas court wrote, “would in effect

enable [the Holloways] to use as a sword the protection which the Legislature

awarded them as a shield.” Id. This situation is sometimes referred to as “waiver

by implication.” Bittaker v. Woodford, 331 F.3d 715, 719 (9th Cir. 2003).

       Pappas and Bittaker are both distinguishable. In both of those cases,

claims were made that put an attorney’s performance at issue. In Pappas, the

defendants counterclaimed that Pappas committed legal malpractice, and in

Bittaker, the defendant claimed ineffective assistance of counsel. In contrast,

                                        35
No. 84292-7-I/36

Franco’s argument is about waiver by implication: he argues the court “effectively

authorized a partial waiver of the attorney-client privilege, thus turning the

doctrine on its head.”

        But the court here authorized no such waiver. And the test for whether the

party asserting a privilege has impliedly waived it requires examining whether the

“(1) assertion of the privilege was the result of some 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.” Pappas, 114 Wn.2d at 207 (citing Hearn v.

Rhay, 68 F.R.D. 574, 581 (E.D. Wash. 1975)).

        Here, MacQuarie is the party asserting the privilege but not the party that

filed suit. Nor is MacQuarie the party who made the information at issue relevant;

Franco did that by alleging the AlixPartners’ report was flawed. And finally,

Franco does not argue the report was vital to his defense; rather, he argues

MacQuarie “could not have so easily argued” that the independent directors

ratified the earlier decision to terminate Franco, so “the jury may have found” the

defendants breached their duty by ousting him. Thus, MacQuarie did not waive

the privilege by implication, nor did the court authorize any “partial waiver.”

        Perisho did not testify, and the substance of his advice to the independent

directors was never before the jury. 28 The court, in fact, would not permit even

        28 The fact that the court did not admit the privileged investigation distinguishes two

federal district court cases Franco also cites in support. In Merisant Co. v. McNeil Nutritionals,

                                                 36
No. 84292-7-I/37

the mention of the word “investigation.” We therefore conclude that the court did

not abuse its discretion by excluding evidence of the Perisho investigation

MacQuarie identified as protected by the attorney-client privilege during

discovery. 29

                                        CONCLUSION

        The trial court did not err by directing the verdict on Franco’s defamation

and tortious interference claims in the MacQuarie defendants’ favor. It properly

refused to give an erroneous instruction regarding Delaware’s fiduciary duty law.

The court did not abuse its discretion by deciding which of Carol Simmons’s

notes to admit and which to exclude, and these decisions were not a sanction.

The court’s instruction regarding Simmons’s notes, while inappropriate, was not

an impermissible comment on the evidence. Finally, the court did not abuse its

discretion by properly excluding evidence MacQuarie had identified as privileged.

        Affirmed.

LLC, the court declined to rule on the issue and its discussion involved introducing a privileged
document as evidence. 242 F.R.D. 303, 311 (E.D. Pa. 2007). And United States v. Town of
Oyster Bay reinforces that “a party who stands behind its asserted attorney-client privilege, and
refuses to produce the opinions of its counsel, is precluded from introducing the information at
trial,” which is what happened here. No. 14-CV-2317, 2022 WL 34586, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 3,
2022), aff'd as modified, No. 14-CV-2317, 2022 WL 4485154 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2022).
          29 MacQuarie also argues Franco’s arguments are barred by waiver and invited error. As

we have decided the issue on the merits, we do not address these arguments.

                                               37
No. 84292-7-I/38

WE CONCUR:

                   38