UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 96-60433
__________________
GLADYS MADISON, Guardian for Viola Williams,
Plaintiff,
versus
VINTAGE PETROLEUM, INC., ET AL.,
Defendants.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
HENRY LEE WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
VINTAGE PETROLEUM, INC., ET AL.,
Defendants,
VINTAGE PETROLEUM, INC.,
Defendant-Appellant.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
__________________
No. 96-60585
__________________
GLADYS MADISON, Guardian for Viola Williams, Et Al.,
Plaintiffs,
versus
VINTAGE PETROLEUM, INC., ET AL.,
Defendants.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
HENRY LEE WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
VINTAGE PETROLEUM, INC., ET AL.,
Defendants,
PLACID OIL CO.,
Defendant-Appellee.
______________________________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Mississippi
(3:93-CV-663 & 3:93CV663LN)
______________________________________________
July 22, 1997
Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
This consolidated appeal challenges the district court’s grant
of summary judgment in favor of Placid Oil Co. (“Placid”) against
Henry Lee Williams. A panel of this court recently concluded that
the district court lacked jurisdiction over Williams’s claims and
ordered the matter remanded to state court. See Madison v. Vintage
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
2
Petroleum, Inc., 1997 WL 381236 (5th Cir. July 10, 1997).
Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the district court and grant
the appellant’s motion to dismiss the appeal (No. 96-60585).1
Pursuant to the same authority, we maintain federal diversity
jurisdiction over Vintage Petroleum, Inc.’s (“Vintage”) appeal from
the contempt order entered by the district court for its failure to
comply with a discovery order (No. 96-60433). See id. The
plaintiff argues that the protections otherwise provided to Vintage
and its attorneys by the work product doctrine were waived when
Southeastern Norm Environmental, Inc. (“Southeastern Norm”), a non-
testifying, consulting expert witness hired by Vintage, disclosed
its reports to the Mississippi State Department of Health (“DOH”).
Under the circumstances of this case, we disagree. First, neither
Vintage nor its attorneys voluntarily disclosed Southeastern Norm’s
reports to DOH. Rather, it is undisputed that the holders of the
privilege did not authorize the disclosure or know that it had
occurred. Second, nothing in the record establishes that the
plaintiff in the instant case was privy to the disclosure of the
subject reports. This court has recognized that the work product
doctrine exists “to promote the adversary system by safeguarding
the fruits of an attorney’s trial preparations from the discovery
1
The panel also held that there is federal jurisdiction over
the claims brought by Gladys Madison, as guardian for Viola
Williams. See id. Because the plaintiff in that matter did not
appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of
Placid, that decision remains in full force.
3
attempts of an opponent.” Shields v. Sturm, Ruger & Co., 864 F.2d
379, 382 (5th Cir. 1989). We believe that the doctrine’s goal will
be served most effectively in this case by continuing to protect
the reports from discovery. Accordingly, we REVERSE the contempt
order entered by the district court against Vintage.
4