SHELL OIL COMPANY, PETITIONER,
v.
PAR FOUR PARTNERSHIP, ETC., ET AL., RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial court erred in compelling production of attorney-client communications because the party seeking disclosure failed to meet its burden of proving the fraud exception applied.
[1] Confidential communications between lawyers and clients are privileged from compelled disclosure.
[2] The attorney-client privilege covers communications on legal matters between corporate counsel and corporate employees.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceShell Oil Company sought certiorari review of a discovery order compelling production of attorney-client communications. Respondent Par Four Partnersh…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Attorney-Client Privilege cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
Petitioner, Shell Oil Company, seeks certiorari review of a discovery order compelling production of attorney-client communications. Respondent, Par Four Partnership, filed an action against Shell alleging wrongful termination of a lease agreement. Par Four filed a motion to compel the production of legal correspondence between Shell employees and in-house counsel regarding the subject lease agreement. Following an in camera inspection of the documents in question, the trial court ordered disclosure.
Confidential communications between lawyers and clients are privileged from compelled disclosure to third persons. See section 90.502(2), Florida Statutes (1993). This privilege covers communications on legal matters between corporate counsel and corporate employees. See, e.g., United Serv. Auto. Ass’n v. Crews, 614 So. 2d 1213, 1214 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Tale of the Pup, Inc. v. Webb, 528 So. 2d 506, 507 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). When communications appear on their face to be privileged, the party seeking disclosure bears the burden of proving that they are not. See Florida Mining and Materials Corp. v. Continental Casualty Co., 556 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Leithauser v. Har rison, 168 So. 2d 95, 97-98 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964).
The legal correspondence between Shell employees and in-house counsel concerning the lease agreement would presumably be privileged. Par Four, the party seeking discovery, did not meet its burden of showing that the documents were not privileged. Par Four argued that the lawyer-client privilege did not apply because the legal services of in-house counsel were obtained to enable Shell employees to commit or plan to commit a fraud. See section 90.-502(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1993). However, Par Four did not produce prima facie evidence that Shell employees sought the advice of counsel to procure a fraud. We therefore grant the petition for writ of certiorari, and quash the order compelling production.
PETITION GRANTED; ORDER QUASHED.
DIAMANTES, J. concurs.
W. SHARP, J., concurs in result only, without opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
First Union Nat'l Bank v. Turney, 824 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…o Co., 697 So. 2d at 1256. “When communications appear on their face to be privileged [or the privi [*184] lege is otherwise established], the party seeking disclosure bears the burden of proving that they are not.” Shell Oil Co. v. Par Four P’ship, 638 So. 2d 1050, 1050 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). See Robichaud v. Kennedy, 711 So. 2d 186, 188 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Cone v. Culverhouse, 687 So. 2d 888, 892 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); The Haskell Co. v. Georgia Pac. Corp., 684 So. 2d 297, 298 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). These predicat…
-
Rousso v. Hannon, 146 So. 3d 66 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…wyers and clients are privileged from compelled disclosure to third persons.... When communications appear on their face to be privileged, the party seeking disclosure bears the burden of proving that they are not.” Shell Oil Co. v. Par Four P’ship, 638 So. 2d 1050, 1050 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (citations omitted); see also Ford Motor Co. v. Hall-Edwards, 997 So. 2d 1148, 1153 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (holding that “the attorney-client privilege ... protects confidential communications between a lawyer and client, as we…
-
Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Hess, 814 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…request required disclosure of attorney-client communications. Therefore, the trial court should not have ordered production of these communications without first conducting an in-camera inspection thereof. See Shell Oil Co. v. Par Four Partnership, 638 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)(holding that, when communications appear on their face to be privileged, the party seeking disclosure bears the burden of proving that they are not). Furthermore, one of the interrogatories merits the granting of Nationwide’s pe…
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Leithauser v. Harrison, 168 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Fla. Mining & Materials Corp. & David L. Bracewell v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 556 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- United Servs. Auto. Ass'n v. Crews, 614 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Tail OF THE PUP, Inc. v. Webb, 528 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)