|CALENDAR STATUS: Active|
|Crimson Trace Corporation v. Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP|
|Supreme Court Case 4|
|Kevin Stuart Rosen on behalf of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Frederick Ross Boundy, and William A Birdwell|
Bonnie Richardson on behalf of Crimson Trace Corporation
Statement of Issues:
|Crimson Trace Corporation v. Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP (S061086) (original mandamus proceeding; order from Multnomah County Circuit Court).|
Defendant Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, seeking a writ directing the trial court to vacate an order granting a motion filed by plaintiff Crimson Trace Corporation to compel the production of documents that defendant claims are subject to the lawyer-client privilege. The Oregon Supreme Court allowed the petition and issued an alternative writ of mandamus.
The issue in this mandamus proceeding is as follows:
Whether a lawyer's communications with in-house counsel regarding matters involving a current client of the firm are protected by the lawyer-client privilege, OEC 503.
The foregoing summary of a Supreme Court case that is scheduled for oral argument has been prepared for the benefit of the public. Parties and practitioners should rely on neither the factual summary set out above, nor the statement of issues to be decided, as delineating the questions that the Supreme Court ultimately may consider on review. See generally Oregon Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.20.
Justice(s) NOT Participating: