Williamson v. Edmonds, No. 2003-IA-01099-SCT.
| Decision Date | 12 August 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 2003-IA-01099-SCT. |
| Parties | Edward A. WILLIAMSON, Individually, and Edward A. Williamson, P.A. v. Lisa EDMONDS and Larry Edmonds. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
John Benton Clark, Simine Bazyari Reed, Ernest G. Taylor, Shanda L. Lewis, Jackson, attorneys for appellants.
George W. Healy, IV, attorney for appellees.
EN BANC.
¶ 1. Lisa and Larry Edmonds (the Edmondses) sought a declaratory judgment in the Circuit Court of Kemper County, Mississippi, against attorney Edward A. Williamson and his law firm, Edward A. Williamson, P.A. (hereinafter Williamson), alleging Williamson breached his duty of care, contractual obligations, and duty of loyalty to his clients. Subsequently, the Edmondses filed an amended complaint against Williamson demanding a total of $1,000,000 in damages, attorney fees and other relief.
¶ 2. The Edmondses served discovery requests on Williamson. Williamson responded by arguing that much of the information was privileged or otherwise confidential pursuant to the confidentially agreement contained in the settlement. Williamson settled the Edmondses' claims along with other named and unnamed plaintiffs in connection with Annette Williams, et al. v. American Home Products Corp., Cause No.2000-207, pursuant to the Qualified Settlement Fund (QSF) order entered in the Circuit Court of Holmes County, Mississippi, in compliance with the regulations established by the Internal Revenue Service.
¶ 3. Williamson objected to answering the Edmondses' propounded interrogatories and requests for documents maintaining that they violated attorney-client privilege and the confidentiality agreement contained within the settlement relating to Williamson's representation of other Phen-Fen clients included in the settlement, including the names of all of Williamson's Phen-Fen clients, the total settlement amount, and the amount of all individual settlements. Williamson argued that disclosure would violate the contractual confidentiality of the settlement and the QSF order.
¶ 4. The QSF order entered by the Holmes County Circuit Court contained the following provisions:
The Edmondses filed their motions to compel answers to the propounded interrogatories and requests for production of documents. Williamson responded again asserting attorney-client privileges on behalf of his other clients involved in the settlement and arguing that the confidentiality agreement incorporated into the QSF order issued by the Circuit Court of Holmes County barred disclosure.
¶ 5. Williamson also filed a motion for protective order to prohibit the Edmondses from seeking discovery of confidential settlement documents and information attaching the Holmes County Circuit Court QSF order. Williamson later filed a supplemental motion for protective order seeking also to prevent the taking of the deposition of, and the production of subpoenaed documents by, Dr. Malcolm Taylor, a medical expert in the Holmes County Circuit Court litigation against American Home Products Corporation (hereinafter American Home).
¶ 6. Several former plaintiffs in the Holmes County Circuit Court litigation represented at this time by counsel other than Williamson intervened for the limited purpose of asserting their claims of legal and medical privileges.
¶ 7. Williamson filed a motion to dismiss or transfer the case to Holmes County Circuit Court. Following a hearing held regarding venue and discovery issues, the Kemper County Circuit Court issued its Memorandum Opinion and Order denying Williamson's motion to dismiss or transfer to Holmes County, granting Edmondses' motion to compel as to attorney-client and physician-patient privileges, and ordering the parties to seek relief from the Holmes County Circuit Court from the confidentiality provision of the QSF Order. Williamson moved to reconsider or in the alternative, to certify the issues for interlocutory appeal. In turn, we granted permission for this interlocutory appeal. See M.R.A.P. 5.
¶ 8. Williamson represented 31 clients and their spouses in Phen-Fen product liability litigation against American Home. The Edmondses were among Williamson's clients. On November 12, 2000, Lisa first met with Williamson at his law office in Philadelphia, Neshoba County, Mississippi. Five days later, Lisa returned to Williamson's law office in Philadelphia to sign a contract of representation. Williamson filed suit on behalf of 14 named plaintiffs out of the 31 clients in Annette Williams, et al. v. American Home Products Corp. in the Circuit Court of Holmes County. The Edmondses were not named as plaintiffs. Williamson prosecuted the claims of all 31 clients, whether named or unnamed in the litigation.
¶ 9. On April 24, 2001, Williamson negotiated an aggregate settlement on behalf of the 31 clients and their spouses in Annette Williams, et al v. American Home Products Corp. in the Circuit Court of Holmes County. In the QSF order, the Holmes County Circuit Court approved the settlement as negotiated by Williamson. Additionally, the trial court sealed the terms of the settlement. Each client executed a release and confidentiality agreement in exchange for a monetary settlement. Lisa executed her settlement documents at Williamson's law office in Philadelphia, Mississippi. Subsequent to Lisa's executing the settlement documents, her husband, Larry, settled his loss of consortium case. Larry executed the settlement documents at Williamson's law office in Philadelphia.
¶ 10. The Edmondses lived in Kemper County, Mississippi. During the course of his representation, Williamson's law office mailed documents to Lisa at her Kemper County residence, via U.S. Mail, and hand-delivered one letter to Lisa at her home by Williamson's legal assistant.
¶ 11. On interlocutory appeal, Williamson raises the issue of whether the trial court erred in not transferring venue from Kemper County. Williamson also raises the issue of attorney-client privilege and doctor-patient privilege for the medical information and the confidentiality agreement contained in the QSF order entered by the Holmes County Circuit Court. Williamson argues that each of these prevent the disclosure of the information requested by the Edmondses.
¶ 12. The Edmondses filed their complaint in this action on July 15, 2002. Thus, the amendments to the venue statute which went into effect on January 1, 2003, are not applicable to the case sub judice as per Section 16 of 2002 Miss. Laws, 3d Ex.Sess., ch. 4, which states: "This act shall take effect and be in force from and after January 1, 2003, and shall apply to all causes of action filed on or after that date." The applicable venue statute, prior to that amendment, read in pertinent part:
Civil actions of which the circuit court has original jurisdiction shall be commenced in the county in which the defendant or any of them may be found or in the county where the cause of action may occur or accrue and, if the defendant is a domestic corporation, in the county in which said corporation is domiciled or in the county where the cause of action may occur or accrue, except where otherwise provided....
Miss.Code Ann. § 11-11-3(1) (Supp.2001) (emphasis added). As amended, the section omits the accrual language.
¶ 13. An application for a change of venue is addressed to the discretion of the trial judge, and his ruling thereon will not be disturbed unless it clearly appears that there has been an abuse of discretion or that the discretion has not been justly and properly exercised under the circumstances of the case. Beech v. Leaf River Forrest Prods., Inc., 691 So.2d 446, 448 (Miss.1997) (quoting Miss. State Highway Comm'n v. Rogers, 240 Miss. 529, 128 So.2d 353, 358 (1961)). Additionally, the trial court must give the plaintiff the benefit of reasonable doubt with respect to venue selection, and this Court must do the same on appeal. Pisharodi v. Golden Triangle Reg'l Med. Ctr., 735 So.2d 353, 354 (Miss.1999). It is well-established that the plaintiff is entitled to choose between any of the permissible venue options where credible evidence or factual basis supports the venue selected. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Johnson, 807 So.2d 382, 387 (Miss.2001)
; Earwood v. Reeves, 798 So.2d 508, 513 (Miss.2001); Forrest County Gen. Hosp. v. Conway, 700 So.2d 324, 325 (Miss.1997). A substantial component of the claim must have taken place in the county for venue to exist where the alleged act or omission occurred. See Flight Line, Inc. v. Tanksley, 608 So.2d 1149, 1157 (Miss.1992). See also Earwood, 798 So.2d at 513 (); Conway, 700 So.2d at 325.
¶ 14. In Tanksley, an airplane was improperly loaded in Warren County, Mississippi. Tanksley, 608 So.2d at 1153-54. The plane flew to Chicago, Illinois, where Tanksley was injured while unloading the plane. Id. Tanksley's injury was the result of the improper loading. Id. This Court found venue to be proper in Warren County finding that the injury could not have occurred without the negligent loading. Id. at 1156-57. We stated:
In the final analysis, venue is about convenience. The legislative prescription implies a legislative finding counties meeting certain criteria will generally be more convenient to the parties. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Shaw
... ... other defendants had fired weapons into a Jeep Cherokee killing Doris, Harold, and Hosea Williamson. Id. Harris fired shots from a .357 magnum handgun, while one of the other defendants used an ... ...
-
Hayden v. State, 2006-KA-00854-SCT.
...of justice. That purpose, of course, requires that clients be free to make full disclosure to their attorneys.'" Williamson v. Edmonds, 880 So.2d 310, 318 (Miss.2004) (citations omitted). The scope of the attorney-client privilege has been interpreted broadly by this State. This Court in Wi......
-
Great Am. E & S Ins. Co. v. Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A.
...100 So.3d 420, 467–69. 11.Pierce v. Cook, 992 So.2d 612, 617 (Miss.2008). 12.See generallyMiss. R. Evid. 502(b); Williamson v. Edmonds, 880 So.2d 310 (2004). 13.Century 21 Deep South Properties, Ltd. v. Corson, 612 So.2d 359 (Miss.1992). 14.See id. at 374. 15.Id. 16.Miss.Code Ann. § 11–7–20......
-
Waggoner v. Williamson
...with the majority opinion today. I write separately to express my view that, but for this Court's prior precedent in Williamson v. Edmonds, 880 So.2d 310 (Miss.2004), I would have affirmed the trial court's ruling to grant summary judgment, in part, on the attorney's fees, multi-litigation ......
-
Using Traditional Privileges
...but the fact of the meeting itself is not, because it does not reveal any confidential communications. But see Williamson v. Edmonds, 880 So.2d 310 (Miss. 2004) finding that the attorney-client privilege does not require the communication to contain purely legal analysis or advice in order ......
-
Using traditional privileges
...but the fact of the meeting itself is not, because it does not reveal any confidential communications. But see Williamson v. Edmonds, 880 So.2d 310 (Miss. 2004) finding that the attorney-client privilege does not require the communication to contain purely legal analysis or advice in order ......
-
Using Traditional Privileges
...but the fact of the meeting itself is not, because it does not reveal any confidential communications. But see Williamson v. Edmonds, 880 So.2d 310 (Miss. 2004) finding that the attorney-client privilege does not require the communication to contain purely legal analysis or advice in order ......