UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
MARK D. BARTLEY CASE NO. 94-70509
KEMPER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANIES
AND GENERAL STAR NATIONAL PLAINTIFFS
VS: ADV. NO. 95-7005
MARK D. BARTLEY, BRUCE LESLIE
AND MCBRAYER, MCGINNIS, LESLIE
& KIRKLAND DEFENDANTS
* * * * *
MARK D. BARTLEY PLAINTIFF
EUGENE HOWARD AND JOHNSTON
COCA-COLA BOTTLING GROUP, INC. DEFENDANTS
AND ADV. 95-7004
JESSIE HOWARD AND AMERICAN
MOTORISTS INSURANCE COMPANY INTERVENING PLAINTIFFS
MARK D. BARTLEY INTERVENING DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon a dispute concerning production of documents, pursuant to a request in this proceeding by Defendants Philip Bruce Leslie and McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie & Kirkland. By agreement, the parties have submitted the documents in question to the Court for in camera review by the Court.
The documents in question consist of copies of letters written by Philip Bruce Leslie in his capacity as attorney for Mark Bartley in the period after the trial and agreement, in principle, to settle the suit pending in the Magoffin Circuit Court. During this period, while Judgment had been rendered, the time to appeal remained open and, subsequently, a timely appeal was apparently filed in the personal injury action. The correspondence in question consists of two categories: 1) correspondence with client or his insurance company; and 2) correspondence with medical experts with respect to debtor's competency to enter into a binding settlement agreement.
Counsel for Philip Bruce Leslie and McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie & Kirkland has asserted that the materials are privileged and fall within the scope of the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product rule, or are otherwise irrelevant to the present proceedings.
Clearly, the correspondence with the debtor and debtor's insurance company is a privileged communication pursuant to the attorney-client privilege. With respect to the communications with medical experts regarding competency, and assuming, arguendo, the relevancy of the documents, it appears that these documents likewise are privileged communications since they were prepared by Bartley's attorney for his medical expert. Toledo Edison Company, et al v. G A Technologies, Inc., et al, 847 F.2d 335 (6th Cir. 1988). Haworth, Inc. v. Herman Miller, Inc., 162 F.R.D. 289 (W.D. Mich., 1995).
Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the aforegoing correspondence is not discoverable in the within proceeding and Philip Bruce Leslie and McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie & Kirkland may withhold the aforesaid correspondence from disclosure.
Dated this _____ day of ______________, 1995.
BY THE COURT
W. Thomas Bunch, Esq.
Gillard B. Johnson III, Esq.
Daniel A. Simons, Esq.
Ronald G. Polly, Esq.
Thomas K. Herron, Esq.
E. David Marshall, Esq.
Catherine R. Meng, Esq.
Eugene C. Rice, Esq.
Michael J. Schmitt, Esq.