Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 2008

in Re Wilburn Lewis Kirkpatrick

in Re Wilburn Lewis Kirkpatrick
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided April 9, 2008

in Re Wilburn Lewis Kirkpatrick

Opinion

 

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

 

 

 


No. 10-08-00092-CV

 

In re Wilburn Lewis Kirkpatrick

 

 


Original Proceeding

 

 

MEMORANDUM  Opinion

 

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. 

 

 

                                                                                    BILL VANCE

                                                                                    Justice

 

Before Chief Justice Gray,

            Justice Vance, and

            Justice Reyna

Petition denied

Opinion delivered and filed April 9, 2008

[OT06]


 

-size:14.0pt;font-family:"CG Times"; text-transform:uppercase;letter-spacing:1.0pt'>(dissenting on one very small issue)


 

          Sometimes all that is necessary to prove a privilege is the document itself.  But this requires some careful analysis.  In Kelly’s “privilege log,” I note that it fails to identify the other recipients of items 2, 3, and 4.[1]  Because other persons received the documents, and there is no affidavit or other evidence of who these persons are, I agree that Kelly has failed to establish the privileges asserted to these three items.  I also note that the information in the log on items 2 and 3 is not entirely accurate.

          Item 1 in the privilege log is clearly work product.  Kelly sought to protect it on this basis.  It should be protected.  Thus, on this one issue, I dissent; otherwise, I concur in the Court’s judgment.

 

                                                          TOM GRAY

                                                          Chief Justice

 

Concurring and Dissenting Opinion delivered and filed July 13, 2005



[1] It is difficult to discern or correlate the documents produced in camera to the privilege log.  The log has four items listed.  The documents produced in camera are divided by five numbered tabs.  The first three items behind tab 1 correspond to the first three items on the log.  Everything after that, including what is behind each of the four remaining tabs, may have been part of a file as described in item 4 in the log.  I simply cannot tell.  There are many people who appear to have received the documents whose identities are not established.  There are many discrete documents of different and diverse character.  The privilege log should have listed each document and the privilege asserted to it.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.