Narrative Opinion Summary
This case involves an interlocutory appeal by Gerald Pevey against a discovery order from the Benton County Circuit Court, which compelled him to comply with Bay Cities Container Corporation's discovery requests despite his claims of privilege and work product protection. Pevey formerly worked for Bay Cities and allegedly retained confidential information after his employment, leading to a breach of contract and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act lawsuit by Bay Cities. The discovery dispute centers on Pevey's resistance to providing detailed information about the access and handling of Bay Cities' data, which he claims is protected by attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, and non-testifying expert privilege. The court reviewed the discovery requests under an abuse-of-discretion standard and found no abuse in requiring Pevey to disclose non-privileged information, emphasizing the need for Bay Cities to ascertain the handling of its confidential data. The court's ruling allowed Bay Cities to obtain facts about the forensic imaging and access to its proprietary information, while maintaining the protection of privileged communications. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, upholding the discovery order and denying Pevey's subsequent motions to vacate and amend the order or stay proceedings pending appeal.
Legal Issues Addressed
Abuse of Discretion Standard in Discovery Matterssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court's decision to compel discovery was reviewed under the abuse-of-discretion standard, and no abuse was found.
Reasoning: The court, however, employs an abuse-of-discretion standard for reviewing discovery matters and finds no abuse in compelling the requested discovery.
Attorney-Client Privilege and Attorney Work Product Doctrinesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court compelled the disclosure of facts about the forensic review while preserving privileged communications, emphasizing that only non-privileged information was necessary for discovery.
Reasoning: The court denied Pevey’s motion to strike and granted Bay Cities’ motion to compel, limited to non-privileged information.
Breach of Contract and Computer Fraud and Abuse Actsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Bay Cities alleged that Pevey violated confidentiality agreements and misused proprietary information, leading to a lawsuit seeking an injunction and damages.
Reasoning: On August 23, 2019, Bay Cities filed a lawsuit against Pevey for breach of contract and violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, seeking a permanent injunction and damages.
Discovery Orders and Privilege Claims under Arkansas Rule 2(f)(1)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found no abuse of discretion in compelling discovery requests related to privilege claims, as Bay Cities' requests aimed to clarify the handling of its confidential information.
Reasoning: The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, determining there was no abuse of discretion.
Non-Testifying Expert Privilege under Arkansas Rule 26(b)(4)(B)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that exceptional circumstances justified the discovery of facts known by Pevey's non-testifying expert, excluding privileged communications.
Reasoning: Under Arkansas Rule 26(b)(4)(B), a party can discover facts or opinions from an expert not expected to testify only under exceptional circumstances.