Ford Motor Co. v. Leggat
1995 WL 371193, 904 S.W.2d 643 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a conflict of laws dispute concerning attorney-client privilege, the law of the state with the most significant relationship to the communication applies, which is typically the state where the communication occurred. Additionally, amounts paid in prior, unrelated settlements are not discoverable if sought solely to formulate a settlement strategy, as they are not relevant to the underlying claims.
Facts:
- Reynauld White was killed when the Ford Bronco II he was driving on Interstate Highway 45 flipped and rolled over.
- In 1982, Ford's general counsel prepared a report containing legal advice for Ford's Policy and Strategy Committee.
- The 1982 report was presented and discussed at a confidential committee meeting in Dearborn, Michigan.
- Ford's in-house engineers prepared technical data concerning the Bronco II at the request of the company's in-house and outside counsel for use in pending and future litigation.
- Ford had previously paid to settle other legal claims arising from Bronco II rollover incidents.
Procedural Posture:
- The estate and survivors of Reynauld White (the Whites) sued Ford Motor Company in a Texas trial court for products liability.
- During discovery, the Whites filed a motion to compel production of a 1982 legal report, technical data, and details of prior settlement amounts.
- Ford objected, asserting the documents were protected by the attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine, and that the settlement amounts were not relevant.
- The trial court granted the Whites' motion and ordered Ford to produce the requested documents and information.
- Ford petitioned the Supreme Court of Texas for a writ of mandamus, asking it to direct the trial court to vacate its discovery order.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court abuse its discretion by compelling the discovery of (1) corporate communications protected by attorney-client privilege under the law of the state where they occurred, and (2) the amounts paid in prior, unrelated settlements?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Cornyn
Yes. A trial court abuses its discretion by ordering the production of privileged documents and irrelevant settlement information. First, when determining which state's law of attorney-client privilege applies, courts must use the 'most significant relationship' test from the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws. Because the purpose of the privilege is to encourage confidential communication, it is treated as a substantive right, and the law of the state where the communication occurred—in this case, Michigan—should govern. Michigan uses a broader 'subject matter' test for corporate privilege than Texas's 'control group' test, and under Michigan's law, both the 1982 report and the engineers' technical data are privileged because they were confidential communications made for the purpose of securing legal advice. Second, the amounts Ford paid to settle prior Bronco II cases are not discoverable. This information is not relevant to the plaintiffs' claims, nor is it reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence regarding Ford's liability or current net worth. The plaintiffs' apparent purpose—to use the information to formulate a settlement strategy—is not a proper basis for discovery.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies Texas's approach to choice-of-law issues regarding evidentiary privileges, treating the attorney-client privilege as a substantive right governed by the 'most significant relationship' test rather than a procedural rule of the forum. This holding provides greater predictability for multi-state corporations, which can rely on the privilege laws of the jurisdiction where legal advice is sought. The ruling also narrows the scope of discovery by holding that information sought purely for settlement leverage, such as prior settlement amounts, fails the relevancy test, thereby protecting confidentiality and preventing discovery from being used as a strategic bargaining tool.
