CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2004

National Council of La Raza v. Department of Justice

Plaintiff advocacy organizations brought this Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) action to compel the Department of Justice (DOJ) to produce records concerning the authority of state and local police to enforce immigration laws. The DOJ asserted that the documents were protected by Exemption 5, citing deliberative process and attorney-client privileges. The court found that most withheld documents were covered by the deliberative process privilege. However, it ruled that the DOJ waived its privilege for the April 2002 Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memorandum (Document 28) because the Attorney General and his representatives repeatedly invoked it publicly to justify their policy. Consequently, the court partially granted and partially denied the DOJ's motion for summary judgment, ordering the production of Document 28 and requiring in camera inspection for documents 23-25.

FOIA LitigationDeliberative Process Privilege WaiverGovernment TransparencyImmigration Law Enforcement AuthorityDepartment of Justice PolicyOffice of Legal Counsel OpinionsSummary Judgment RulingInter-agency CommunicationAttorney-Client PrivilegeDocument Disclosure
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Fairway Methanol LLC

Relators Fairway Methanol LLC and Celanese Ltd. filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel Judge Brent Gamble to vacate his order on a motion to compel, which required the production of documents. The documents related to an investigation into an accident involving Celanese employee Jose Salazar, who suffered severe injuries. Celanese asserted attorney-client and work-product privileges over these documents, claiming they were prepared in anticipation of litigation. The appellate court found that Celanese presented a prima facie case that many documents were privileged and that the Plaintiffs (Salazar and his wife) had not demonstrated a substantial need for the non-core work product. Consequently, the court conditionally granted the mandamus, instructing the trial court to vacate its previous order and issue a new one to produce only a limited set of non-privileged documents.

MandamusAttorney-Client PrivilegeWork Product PrivilegeDiscovery DisputeIncident InvestigationAnticipation of LitigationCorporate CounselTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureTexas Rules of EvidenceAppellate Review
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Boring & Tunneling Co. of America, Inc. v. Salazar

This case involves a petition for writ of mandamus filed by the defendants (relators) in an underlying personal injury lawsuit. The relators, Boring & Tunneling Company of America, Inc. and Lee Arthur Evans, sought to prevent the discovery of certain documents, claiming they were protected by investigative and attorney-client privileges. The documents included an attorney's letter and file memo, and statements from Lee Arthur Evans and his son, Keith Evans, related to a fatal car accident. The trial court, presided over by Judge Felix Salazar, initially granted a protective order but later rescinded it, ordering the production of the disputed documents. On review, the appellate court determined that the relators failed to prove the applicability of investigative privileges because they did not provide objective evidence that the documents were prepared in anticipation of litigation. However, the court found that the attorney-client privilege applied to the attorney's letter to the claims adjuster, but not to the attorney's file memo (due to waiver) or Lee Arthur Evans' statement (due to conflicting evidence regarding the attorney-client relationship at the time). Consequently, the petition for writ of mandamus was conditionally granted in part, ordering the trial court to rescind its production order only for the attorney's letter to the adjuster, and denied for the other documents.

MandamusDiscoveryAttorney-Client PrivilegeInvestigative PrivilegeWork Product PrivilegePrivileged DocumentsAbuse of DiscretionAnticipation of LitigationPersonal InjuryMotor Vehicle Accident
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allocco Recycling, Ltd. v. Doherty

Plaintiff Allocco Recycling, Ltd. subpoenaed non-party Urbitran Associates, Inc. for documents prepared for the New York City Department of Sanitation (DSNY). Defendant John Doherty, Commissioner of DSNY, moved to quash the subpoena and for a protective order, claiming the documents were irrelevant, unduly burdensome to produce, and protected by deliberative process privilege. Allocco cross-moved to compel production. This memorandum decision specifically addresses the deliberative process privilege claim, finding that the documents, which involve data collection and analysis by a government consultant, are purely factual and do not constitute advisory opinions or policy deliberations. Therefore, the court ruled that the documents are not protected by the deliberative process privilege.

Deliberative Process PrivilegeSubpoenaMotion to QuashProtective OrderMotion to CompelDiscoveryGovernment DocumentsFactual InformationAgency PolicyGovernment Consultant
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 30, 2006

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Brady

This case involves discovery disputes between Defendant Gregory A. Brady, a former executive of i2 Technologies, and the i2 Audit Committee and its legal counsel, Baker Botts L.L.P. Brady, who is a defendant in an underlying SEC lawsuit for alleged accounting improprieties, sought to compel the production of documents from internal investigations conducted by Baker Botts. The i2 Audit Committee and Baker Botts, in turn, moved for the protection and return of privileged materials. The court denied Brady's motion to compel the production of documents, categorizing them as protected opinion work product for which Brady failed to demonstrate a compelling need. However, the court found that both attorney-client privilege and work product immunity had been waived for certain materials due to prior disclosures to third parties. The court granted the motion for protection, ordering Brady to return specific privileged documents, and also granted Brady's motion for leave to file a supplemental brief.

Discovery DisputeAttorney-Client PrivilegeWork Product DoctrineWaiver of PrivilegeOpinion Work ProductMotion to CompelProtective OrderSEC InvestigationInternal InvestigationCorporate Governance
References
60
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2006

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. National Marine Fisheries Service

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) filed a lawsuit against the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). NRDC sought documents concerning the environmental impacts of military sonar and a mass stranding of whales in North Carolina. The defendants invoked the deliberative process privilege for certain withheld documents, specifically the 'April Document' and 'April Email.' The Court conducted an in camera review of the documents. The Court determined that much of the withheld material in the April Document consisted of purely factual information, primarily necropsy observations, which are not protected by the deliberative process privilege. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was partially granted, compelling the defendants to disclose the factual information.

FOIADeliberative Process PrivilegeSummary JudgmentMarine Mammal Protection ActWhale StrandingGovernment TransparencyInformation DisclosureAdministrative LawFederal CourtAnimal Protection
References
17
Case No. 03-19-00362-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2020

the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity and Jon Cassidy v. University of Texas System

The Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity and Jon Cassidy appealed a district court's summary judgment favoring The University of Texas System regarding the disclosure of documents under the Texas Public Information Act (TPIA). The documents pertained to an independent investigation by Kroll Associates, Inc. into UT System's admissions policies. The district court had granted summary judgment, finding the documents protected by attorney-client privilege. However, the Court of Appeals determined that Kroll was not acting as a "lawyer's representative." Thus, the attorney-client privilege did not apply, and the documents, after specific redactions, were ruled to be public information subject to disclosure. The summary judgment of the trial court was reversed and rendered.

Public Information ActAttorney-Client PrivilegeIndependent InvestigationAdmissions PoliciesSummary JudgmentDisclosureWaiverLawyer's RepresentativeEducation RecordsFERPA
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mary Imogene Bassett Hospital v. Sullivan

This case addresses a plaintiff's challenge to the defendant Secretary's Medicare reimbursement determination for 1976-1981, made through Blue Cross/Blue Shield. The plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery for six documents and sought access to a large Medicare patient data base for statistical analysis. The defendant invoked the predecisional/deliberative process privilege for the documents and argued irrelevance and Privacy Act protections against data base disclosure. The court granted discovery for one document (27) and the data base, finding it relevant to challenges to the regulations 'as applied' and their contravention of Congressional intent. However, discovery was denied for other documents based on valid claims of deliberative process privilege, with one denial having leave to renew.

Medicare reimbursementdiscovery disputedeliberative process privilegePrivacy Actagency regulationshealth care financingadministrative lawpredecisional documentsdata accessfederal court
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Turbodyne Corp. v. Heard

Turbodyne Corporation, et al. filed an original mandamus action against Judge Hyatt Heard of the 190th District Court of Harris County. The applicants sought to compel Judge Heard to rescind his order denying discovery of 39 documents from Travelers Insurance Company, which Travelers claimed were privileged under TEX.R.CIV.P. 166b. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals had previously denied mandamus relief. The Supreme Court of Texas, citing *Robinson v. Harkins & Company*, held that the investigative privilege only protects documents prepared for the specific lawsuit in which discovery is sought, not for prior settlements. The court also found that Travelers failed to prove that documents prepared by non-testifying experts were made in anticipation of the subrogation litigation. Consequently, the Supreme Court determined that the trial court abused its discretion and conditionally granted the writ of mandamus, ordering that documents prepared prior to July 30, 1980, are discoverable.

MandamusDiscovery DisputePrivilegeTrial Court Abuse of DiscretionTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureWork Product DoctrineAnticipation of LitigationSubrogation SuitInsurance InvestigationConditional Grant
References
7
Case No. 01-15-00349-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 2015

in Re Manhattan Vaughn, JVP

This case involves a wrongful death action brought by Josefina Garcia and Orbelinda Herrera against Manhattan I Vaughn, JVP, Texas Cutting & Coring LP, Texas Cutting & Coring GP, Inc., and Lindamood Demolition, Inc., following the death of Angel Garcia. Angel Garcia sustained fatal injuries from a four-story fall while operating a Caterpillar Skid Steer Loader during the Kyle Field Stadium renovation project, for which Manhattan I Vaughn was the general contractor. The core dispute on appeal stems from the trial court's order compelling Manhattan I Vaughn to produce over 1200 pages of withheld documents related to a safety investigation into Garcia's death. Manhattan I Vaughn sought a writ of mandamus to overturn this discovery order, claiming the documents were privileged work-product or attorney-client communications. The Plaintiffs (Real Parties in Interest) filed this response, arguing that Manhattan I Vaughn waived its privilege claims by failing to timely disclose the documents and that the documents were generated in the ordinary course of business, not in anticipation of litigation.

MandamusWrit PetitionDiscovery DisputeAttorney-Client PrivilegeWork Product DoctrineWrongful DeathConstruction SafetyMotion to CompelAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
33
Showing 1-10 of 1,627 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational