Cantu Services Inc v. Worley et al

Filing 112

ORDER re 97 MOTION for Protective Order to Temporarily Preclude Service of Subpoena filed by Blackstone Consulting Inc, 99 MOTION to Compel Combined Motion to Compel Discovery Responses and to Overrule Defendant's Motion for Protective Order Regarding Subpoena filed by Cantu Services Inc. After conducting its review, the Court concludes that the produced materials did not reveal any evidence of crime or fraud. Accordingly, the crime-fraud exception is inapplicable. Therefore, Cantus motion to compel, Doc. No. 99, is DENIED. Further, BCIs motion for a protective order, Doc. No. 97, is GRANTED. Signed by Honorable David L. Russell on 7/12/21. (jw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
CANTU SERVICES, INC.,
a Texas corporation,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
JAMES KEVAN WORLEY; and
)
BLACKSTONE CONSULTING, INC., )
)
Defendants.
)

No. CIV-12-129-R

ORDER
On June 7, 2021—in Doc. No. 110—the Court denied in part and granted in part
Cantu Services Inc.’s (“Cantu”) motion to compel, Doc. No. 99. In its Order, the Court also
denied in part Blackstone Consulting Inc.’s (“BCI”) motion for a protective order, Doc.
No. 97. The Court explained that after the issuance of the Aycock Order on September 27,
2013, attorney Leif Swedlow’s joint representation of BCI and Robert Brown “remained
intact” because “Cantu offere[ed] no evidence that BCI and Brown, as co-clients, believed
their joint representation ended.” Id. p. 9.
However, the Court also found that “Cantu [ ] met its burden of showing sufficient
evidence to warrant in camera review of the allegedly privileged communications.” Id. p.
11. Accordingly, the Court ordered BCI to produce the requested communications for in
camera review and permitted Cantu to serve its subpoena duces tecum on Brown. Id. p. 13.
The documents in dispute are as follows:

Interrogatory Nos. 11–16 and Requests for Production Nos. 6–11, which
request:
Interrogatory No. 11 and Request for Production No. 6: All
communications between BCI officers, employees, and
representatives and Brown between May 1, 2013 and October
31, 2015 relating to the state court actions, the arbitration, the
Aycock Order, and Cantu’s termination.
Interrogatory No. 12 and Request for Production No. 7: All
communications between BCI officers, employees, and
representatives and Swedlow between May 1, 2013 and
October 31, 2015 relating to the state court actions, the
arbitration, the Aycock Order, and Cantu’s termination.
Interrogatory No. 13 and Request for Production No. 8: All
communications between Brown and Swedlow and other firm
attorneys or employees between May 1, 2013 and October 31,
2015 relating to the state court actions, the arbitration, and the
Aycock Order.
Interrogatory No. 14 and Request for Production No. 9: All
communications between Brown, BCI, and Swedlow and other
firm attorneys or employees between May 1, 2013 and October
31, 2015 relating to the state court actions, the arbitration, the
Aycock Order, and Cantu’s termination.
Interrogatory No. 15 and Request for Production No. 10:
All documents relating to or comprising legal bills from
Swedlow between May 1, 2013 and October 31, 2015 relating
to the state court actions, the arbitration, and the federal court
action confirming the arbitration award.
Interrogatory No. 16 and Request for Production No. 11:
All documents relating to the termination of Cantu as Brown’s
teaming partner at Fort Sill.
Doc. No. 110, pp. 6–7 (internal citations and footnotes omitted).
On June 15, 2021, the Court received BCI’s materials for in camera review. After
Cantu served its subpoena duces tecum on Brown, Brown then produced the requested
2

materials for in camera review on July 7, 2021. The Court then reviewed the produced
materials to determine whether the crime or fraud exception severed the attorney-client
privilege or work-product doctrine.
“As the Tenth Circuit has previously stated, ‘some type of prima facie showing of a
crime or fraud is required under Oklahoma law in order to trigger the applicability of the
crime-fraud exception.’” Doc. No. 110, pp. 10–11 (citing Motley v. Marathon Oil Co., 71
F.3d 1547, 1551 (10th Cir. 1995) (citing White v. American Airlines, Inc., 915 F.2d 1414,
1424 (10th Cir. 1990))). After conducting its review, the Court concludes that the produced
materials did not reveal any evidence of crime or fraud. Accordingly, the crime-fraud
exception is inapplicable. Therefore, Cantu’s motion to compel, Doc. No. 99, is DENIED.
Further, BCI’s motion for a protective order, Doc. No. 97, is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED on this 12th day of July 2021.

3