EX PARTE WATER WORKS AND SEWER BD. OF CITY OF BIRMINGHAM
Decision Date | 30 October 1998 |
Citation | 723 So.2d 41 |
Parties | Ex parte The WATER WORKS AND SEWER BOARD OF the CITY OF BIRMINGHAM. (Re The Water Works and Sewer Board of the City of Birmingham v. American Water Works Association et al.) |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Charlie D. Waldrep, K. Mark Parnell, and Mary H. Thompson of Gorham & Waldrep, P.C., Birmingham; and Billy L. Church and Alan Lasseter of Church & Seay, P.C., Pell City, for petitioner.
M. Clay Ragsdale and E. Ansel Strickland of Law Offices of M. Clay Ragsdale, Birmingham; A. Dwight Blair of Blair, Holladay & Parsons, Pell City; and Gayle Gear of Dawson & Gear, Birmingham, for respondent Larry Wallace.
The Water Works and Sewer Board of the City of Birmingham (the "Water Works") petitions for a writ of mandamus compelling Judge William E. Hereford, of the St. Clair Circuit Court, to vacate his order requiring production of certain documents.
A petition for the writ of mandamus is the proper means for obtaining review of the question "whether a trial court has abused its discretion in ordering discovery, in resolving discovery matters, and in issuing discovery orders." Ex parte Compass Bank, 686 So.2d 1135, 1137 (Ala.1996).
On May 9, 1997, the Water Works filed a declaratory judgment action in the Jefferson Circuit Court, seeking a declaration that expenditures totalling approximately $806,000 made by it to over 100 separate charitable entities between October 1993 and October 1996 were within its corporate powers, were in furtherance of a public purpose, and provided a corporate benefit. On July 1, 1997, the Jefferson Circuit Court granted motions to intervene filed by the attorney general and by Water Works customer Larry Wallace.1 The attorney general and Wallace were realigned as plaintiffs against the Water Works. The court transferred the case to the St. Clair Circuit Court.
The Water Works and the attorney general objected to this discovery request. Following a hearing, the court entered an order denying the motion for a consent order and ordered the Water Works and the attorney general to immediately produce the documents requested by Wallace. The court also ordered that, "To the extent either the Attorney General or [the Water Works] contend[s] that the request includes materials within the attorney-client privilege, the producing parties are required to submit a privilege log identifying all documents withheld from production."
On May 12, 1998, the Water Works filed a "motion to reconsider," along with a list of documents that it asserted were privileged. The attorney general did not join the motion to reconsider. The trial court denied the Water Works' motion to reconsider, holding that the communications between the Water Works and the attorney general were not privileged under either the work-product doctrine or the attorney-client privilege. The court noted that the attorney general was not then objecting to the production of documents in his file, but had not produced them yet.
In its order, the trial court stated:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ex parte LSB
...has abused its discretion ... in resolving discovery matters, and in issuing discovery orders.'" Ex parte Water Works & Sewer Bd. of the City of Birmingham, 723 So.2d 41, 42 (Ala.1998)(quoting Ex parte Compass Bank, 686 So.2d 1135, 1137 (Ala.1996)); see also Ex parte Compass Bank, 686 So.2d......
-
In re: a. J. C. v. L. S. B.
...has abused its discretion ... in resolving discovery matters, and in issuing discovery orders.'" Ex parte Water Works & Sewer Bd. of the City of Birmingham, 723 So. 2d 41, 42 (Ala. 1998)(quoting Ex parte Compass Bank, 686 So. 2d 1135, 1137 (Ala. 1996)); see also Ex parte Compass Bank, 686 S......
-
Ex parte Doster Constr. Co.
...reveal an attorney's mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, and legal theories. See Rule 26(b)(3); Ex parte Water Works & Sewer Bd. of the City of Birmingham, 723 So.2d 41 (Ala.1998); Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947). A videotape showing the employee wo......
-
In re:Curtis O. Childress v.Doster Constr.Co.
...an attorney's mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, and legal theories. See Rule 26(b)(3); Ex parte Water Works & Sewer Bd. of the City of Birmingham, 723 So. 2d 41 (Ala. 1998); Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947). A videotape showing the employee would clearly not fall within this ......