>>gpm: The law is explicit in this case that the attorney client privilege is waived by the attorney not asserting it within 10 days >Please cite what you are

>>gpm: The law is explicit in this case that the attorney client privilege is waived by the attorney not asserting it within 10 days >Please cite what you are referring to. So you're misunderstand a number of things here. First, to specifically clear up one explicit part of the law here for you, this is a state case not federal under Texas rules. The specific one here is Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 193.3 [0]: >(d) Privilege not waived by production. A party who produces material or information without intending to waive a claim of privilege does not waive that claim under these rules or the Rules of Evidence if - within ten days or a shorter time ordered by the court, after the producing party actually discovers that such production was made - the producing party amends the response, identifying the material or information produced and stating the privilege asserted. If the producing party thus amends the response to assert a privilege, the requesting party must promptly return the specified material or information and any copies pending any ruling by the court denying the privilege. Further, there is explicit case law on this too, here the Texas Supreme Court ruling that inadvertent disclosure waives privilege unless there is an assertion of right within 10 days [1]: >The attorney-client privilege may also be waived by inadvertent disclosure during litigation, if the disclosure is accompanied by conduct inconsistent with claiming the privilege of confidentiality. "[T]he essential function of the privilege is to protect a confidence that, once revealed by any means , leaves the privilege with no legitimate function to perform." Notwithstanding actual disclosure, however, Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.3(d) preserves a claim of privilege if the privilege holder (1) did not intend to waive the privilege and (2) takes prompt action to claim the privilege after "actually discover[ing]" the disclosure was made. Rule 193.3(d)"was designed to ensure that important privileges are not waived by mere inadvertence or mistake." But when inadvertence is coupled with failure to take prompt remedial action after discovering actual disclosure of privileged information, the privilege is waived because inaction under such circumstances is inconsistent with claiming the privilege. Further, it's not just an automatic blanket thing. A lot of the information here was information that Jones/team were supposed to turn over in discovery. They broke the rules by not doing so and then lying about it. There was also lots of stuff there that wasn't covered by any attorney-client privilege because it had nothing to do with their communications about the case. FURTHER, when it was brought up, neither Jones nor his lawyer actually objected in court! Which is mindboggling itself. But that too is a waiver. Anyway plaintiff's attorney notified them, and they didn't assert privilege within the ten day deadline, game over. You're ignorant of the law and unjustified in your anger about this. ---- 0: https://www.stcl.edu/lib/TexasRulesProject/TRCP186-193/rule193-3Nov1999.htm https://www.stcl.edu/lib/TexasRulesProject/TRCP186-193/rule1... 1: https://casetext.com/case/paxton-v-city-of-dall-1 https://casetext.com/case/paxton-v-city-of-dall-1