## Facts

- A driver was killed when a Ford Bronco II flipped and rolled over on Interstate 45 in Texas.
- The decedent’s estate and survivors sued Ford in Texas state court, asserting products-liability claims involving alleged defects in the Bronco II.
- In discovery, plaintiffs sought (1) a 1982 report from Ford’s general counsel to a corporate committee, (2) engineers’ technical data prepared at outside counsel’s request for a consultant, and (3) the amounts Ford paid in every Bronco II rollover settlement.
- The trial court ordered Ford to produce the 1982 report and technical data and to answer interrogatories about settlement amounts, without conducting an in camera review.
- Ford claimed the 1982 report and technical data were protected by attorney–client privilege and/or work-product protection and argued the settlement amounts were irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.
- Ford sought mandamus relief, asserting the discovery order was an abuse of discretion and that appeal would be inadequate because compelled disclosure would destroy confidentiality.

## Issues

1. Whether the 1982 general-counsel report was protected by attorney–client privilege and which state’s privilege law applied.
2. Whether the engineers’ technical data prepared at outside counsel’s direction for a consultant was protected by attorney–client privilege and/or the work-product doctrine.
3. Whether amounts paid in other Bronco II rollover settlements were relevant and discoverable.
4. Whether mandamus was available because the discovery order was an abuse of discretion and Ford lacked an adequate remedy by appeal.

## Decision

- The court conditionally granted mandamus and directed the trial court to vacate its discovery order.
- The court held the 1982 report was privileged under the law of the state with the most significant relationship to the communication (Michigan) and should not be produced.
- The court held the engineers’ technical data, created at counsel’s direction for litigation purposes, was protected by attorney–client privilege and/or work product and should not be produced.
- The court held the discovery order compelling disclosure of settlement amounts in other Bronco II rollover cases was an abuse of discretion because the information was not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.
- The court concluded appeal was inadequate because disclosure of privileged material cannot be effectively remedied after production.

## Legal Principles

- Courts may apply the privilege law of the jurisdiction with the most significant relationship to the communication when determining whether attorney–client privilege protects an out-of-state corporate communication.
- Attorney–client privilege extends to confidential communications in which corporate counsel provides legal advice to senior corporate decision-makers.
- Materials prepared by non-lawyer agents at counsel’s direction for litigation support, including for use by consultants retained by counsel, may be protected by attorney–client privilege and/or the work-product doctrine.
- Settlement amounts from other cases are generally not discoverable absent a showing of relevance; such figures often reflect litigation considerations rather than liability facts, and compelled disclosure may conflict with settlement policy.
- Mandamus is an appropriate remedy when a discovery order compels production of privileged materials, because confidentiality is lost once disclosure occurs.

## Conclusion

The Texas Supreme Court granted mandamus to prevent compelled disclosure of privileged corporate legal materials and litigation-preparation technical data and to bar discovery of unrelated settlement amounts, holding the trial court abused its discretion and that post-judgment appeal would not cure the harm from disclosure.


Ford Motor Co. v. Leggat, 904 S.W.2d 643 (Tex. 1995)