 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[W] Hewes v. Langston6/19/2003
compelling production of the 29 Items are reversed, Langston's motion to compel production of the 29 Items is denied, and this case is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
. REVERSED AND REMANDED.
PITTMAN, C.J., SMITH, P.J., AND CARLSON, J., CONCUR. GRAVES, J., DISSENTS WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION. McRAE, P.J., DISSENTS WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION JOINED BY EASLEY, J. GRAVES, J. JOINS IN PART. WALLER AND DIAZ, JJ., NOT PARTICIPATING.
McRAE, PRESIDING JUSTICE, DISSENTING:
. This interlocutory appeal has been before this Court for over four years concerning a pre-trial discovery matter. One can only wonder if the delay has been intentional. In the present proceeding, the case has flipped twice. Justice Cobb won back the majority recently after a Justice recused himself. It is of the utmost importance that Article 6, Section 165 of the Mississippi Constitution be utilized here where so few Justices are participating in the case. Under that provision, the Governor is given power to appoint a Special Justice "to preside at such term or during such disability or disqualification in the place of the judge or judges so disqualified." Miss. Const. art. 6, ยง 165.
. The majority erroneously finds that the thirty documents, which the trial judge reviewed in camera and ordered production, are protected by the attorney client and work product privileges. The majority's findings are repugnant to the spirit of the privileges and go against the very purpose of privilege protection. The trial court's order of production should be affirmed. For this reason, I dissent.
FACTS
. The majority fails to include many facts which are pertinent to this case. For this reason, I will give a short rendition of those facts which were so cleverly deleted from its opinion. This case involves the husband of an attorney for a litigant who allegedly accessed her phone records and gave out the information to the attorney for the other side of the suit. The defendants to this suit now assert the attorney client privilege, the work product privilege, and the common interest privilege.
. In 1994, during the tobacco litigation, Cynthia Langston (Langston) was involved in a heated divorce proceeding with Mike Miller (Miller). Miller worked in management for Bell South Telecommunications (Bell South) in Jackson, Mississippi. In the past, George Hewes's (Hewes) daughter had worked under Miller at Bell South.
. After the anonymous "haunted friend" letter came to light, Langston discovered that Hewes and Miller had met on several occasions to discuss what both describe as possible ex parte meetings between Langston and the Honorable Billy Joe Landrum (Judge Landrum), the trial judge in the tobacco lawsuit. Evidence on the record reveals a sequence of events, communications, and conversations concerning Miller and Hewes's contacts with one another.
. In 1996, while Miller and Langston were going through a divorce , Miller contacted Hewes to discuss information "he might be interested in." When Hewes, Miller, and Charles Adams, met for the first time they all claim to have had a thirty (30) to forty-five (45) minute conversation in complete "hypotheticals." On the record, Hewes and Miller denied having any further contact with one another in 1996, besides a happenstance meeting in downtown Jackson.
. Hewes admitted to contacting Miller in 1997 and having lunch with him to follow up on their previous discussion. At this time, Miller told Hewes about his divorce settlement and how he was not supposed to interfere with Langston's personal or business life. T
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Mississippi Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|