Williams v. Shelby County Board of Education

Filing 148

ORDER SUSTAINING CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE. Signed by Judge Thomas L. Parker on 2/8/2019. (pab)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION

SONYA P. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.
SHELBY COUNTY BOARD OF
EDUCATION,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:17-cv-02050-TLP-egb
JURY DEMAND

ORDER SUSTAINING CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE

Plaintiff moved the Court to make a determination of privilege as to certain materials
held by Defendant. (ECF No. 137.) The Court granted the Motion and Defendant submitted
the relevant materials under seal for in camera review. (ECF Nos. 144 & 147.) Defendant’s
submissions included a privilege log describing why each of the documents were protected
from disclosure. (ECF No. 144 at PageID 3521–22.) After reviewing the materials, the
Court SUSTAINS Defendant’s claim of privilege.
ANALYSIS
Parties may assert the attorney-client privilege to protect confidential communications
exchanged for the purposes of legal advice. Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 403
(1976). This privilege exists to “ensure free and open communications between a client and
his attorney.” In re Grand Jury Subpoenas, 454 F.3d 511, 519 (6th Cir. 2006) (citing Fisher,
425 U.S. at 403). Additionally, in the organizational context, communications by employees
are protected if made within the scope of their employment and performed with knowledge

that the communications are being made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. Upjohn v.
United States, 449 U.S. 383, 394 (1981).
The attorney-client privilege is not the only protection that may be asserted by a party
to litigation. For example, materials may be protected from discovery by the attorney work
product doctrine, which “is distinct from and broader than the attorney-client privilege.” In
re Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp. Billing Practices Litigation, 293 F.3d 289, 294 (6th Cir.
2002) (quoting In re Antitrust Grand Jury, 805 F.2d 155, 163 (6th Cir. 1986)). Rather than
only protecting confidential communications, the work product doctrine also shelters “any
document prepared in anticipation of litigation by or for the attorney.” Id. at 304 (citation
omitted).
Here, the Defendant claims that the submitted materials are protected under the
attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine. These materials relate confidential
emails from Defendant’s general counsel to staff members of Shelby County Schools for
purposes of transmitting or seeking legal advice. These materials, therefore, fall within the
categories mentioned above and are privileged.
CONCLUSION
The Court SUSTAINS Defendant’s assertion of attorney-client privilege over the
specific materials submitted to the Court under seal.
SO ORDERED, this 8th day of February, 2019.
s/Thomas L. Parker
THOMAS L. PARKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2