In re Fox v. Alfini

¶ 1 In this original proceeding pursuant to C.A.R. 21, we review the district court's order compelling production of a recording of petitioner Kayla Fox's initial consultation with her attorney. The district court determined that the recording was not subject to the attorney-client privilege because her parents were present during the consultation and their presence was not required to make the consultation possible. Further, the district court refused to consider several new arguments that Fox raised in a motion for reconsideration.

¶ 2 We issued a rule to show cause and now conclude that the presence of a third party during an attorney-client communication will ordinarily destroy the attorney-client privilege unless the third party's presence was reasonably necessary to the consultation or another exception applies. Here, because the record supports the district court's finding that Fox had not shown that her parents' presence was reasonably necessary to facilitate the communication with counsel, we perceive no abuse of discretion in that court's ruling that the recording at issue was not protected by the attorney-client privilege.

¶ 3 We further conclude that, under settled law, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to consider the new arguments that Fox raised in her motion for reconsideration.

¶ 4 Accordingly, we discharge the rule to show cause.

I. Facts and Procedural Background

¶ 5 Fox, who was then in her early thirties, became seriously ill immediately after receiving chiropractic treatment from Dr. William Alfini, Jr. at the offices of the Brady Chiropractic Group, P.C. in Grand Junction. A massage therapist in the office called Fox's mother, reported that Fox had the flu, and told Fox's mother to come pick up her daughter. Fox's parents arrived shortly thereafter. Realizing that their daughter was gravely ill, they rushed her to the Community Hospital where she received emergency *599care and treatment for what turned out to be a stroke.

¶ 6 At some point thereafter, Fox and her parents contacted attorney James Leventhal to discuss a possible malpractice action by Fox against Dr. Alfini and the Brady Chiropractic Group (collectively, "defendants"). Leventhal recorded at least a portion of this initial consultation in order to make sure that he did not miss anything as he sought to learn the facts leading to Fox's stroke and the harm and damages that resulted from it. Notably, the record reveals no effort by Leventhal to determine before conferring with Fox and her parents whether Fox's stroke caused any cognitive deficiencies such that her parents' presence was necessary to facilitate the consultation.

¶ 7 Subsequently, Fox filed a lawsuit against defendants for, among other things, professional negligence. Discovery ensued, and, during a deposition of Fox's mother, defendants learned that Leventhal had recorded his initial consultation with Fox and her parents. Defendants jointly moved to compel the production of this recording or, in the alternative, for the court's in camera review of the recording to determine if any part of it was discoverable. In their motion, defendants argued that the presence of third parties "vitiate[d] a claim of attorney-client privilege" and that, therefore, the recording was discoverable.

¶ 8 Fox opposed defendants' motion to compel, asserting that she had diminished mental capacity as a result of her stroke. She thus contended that her parents' presence was necessary to facilitate her communications with Leventhal and did not destroy the attorney-client privilege. In support of this argument, Fox attached a neuropsychological evaluation performed fifteen months after her stroke and over a year after the consultation with Leventhal that concluded that she was "likely experiencing ongoing mild difficulties, weaknesses, and/or impairments with her neuropsychological functioning." This evaluation also found "notable," however, that Fox was able to maintain her employment as a middle school counselor. Fox also submitted affidavits from herself and her parents attesting that she believed that she would need her parents' assistance because she did not feel that she had the mental capacity to make decisions that were in her best interest regarding any lawsuit.

¶ 9 In response to these after-the-fact suggestions of Fox's diminished capacity, defendants submitted records of Fox's social media communications after her stroke and both before and after the recorded consultation took place. In these posts, Fox stated that (1) her caregivers had told her that it was as if she had never had a stroke, "as great as [her] nervous system and brain are," and "it's as if nothing ... happened"; (2) "I am doing well and I will make a full recovery"; and (3) "They told me this morning that they expect me to make a full recovery and that I am a medical mystery because my stroke symptoms seem to have disapprared [sic]."

¶ 10 The district court ultimately concluded, "I do not find [Fox's] capacity diminished such that the presence of her parents was necessary to assist in the representation." The court thus ruled that the attorney-client privilege did not protect the recording and granted defendants' request to compel the production of that recording.

¶ 11 Fox then moved for reconsideration. In this motion, she argued, for the first time, that the attorney-client privilege attached to the recording because (1) her parents were prospective clients of Leventhal's and (2) her parents were her agents and shared common legal interests with her. She further argued, also for the first time, that the recording was protected under the work-product doctrine and that defendants had not demonstrated substantial need to discover that recording.

¶ 12 The district court ultimately denied Fox's motion to reconsider, noting that "any arguments raised could have been raised during the pleading stage or at the hearing."

¶ 13 After obtaining a stay so that she could petition this court for relief, Fox filed the present C.A.R. 21 petition, and we issued a rule to show cause.

II. Analysis

¶ 14 We begin by discussing our jurisdiction to hear this matter and the standard of review for discovery orders. We then proceed *600to review the district court's findings concerning the attorney-client privilege, and we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the discovery of the recording at issue. Finally, we review the district court's denial of Fox's motion for reconsideration, and we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to consider arguments that Fox had raised for the first time in her motion for reconsideration.

A. Original Jurisdiction and Standard of Review

¶ 15 Exercise of our original jurisdiction under C.A.R. 21 is within our sole discretion. Fognani v. Young , 115 P.3d 1268, 1271 (Colo. 2005). An original proceeding under C.A.R. 21 is an extraordinary remedy that is limited in purpose and availability. Wesp v. Everson , 33 P.3d 191, 194 (Colo. 2001). Although discovery orders are generally interlocutory in nature and thus reviewable only on appeal, we have exercised our original jurisdiction to review whether a district court abused its discretion in circumstances in which a remedy on appeal would be inadequate. Gateway Logistics Inc. v. Smay , 2013 CO 25, ¶ 11, 302 P.3d 235, 238.

¶ 16 Here, the district court ordered Fox to produce a recording that she claims is protected by the attorney-client privilege. Damage to Fox from the erroneous production of this recording could not be cured by appeal because the damage would occur upon disclosure to defendants regardless of the outcome of an appeal from a final judgment. Id. at ¶ 12, 302 P.3d at 239. We therefore conclude that the exercise of our original jurisdiction is appropriate in this case.

¶ 17 We review a district court's discovery orders for an abuse of discretion. Id. at ¶ 13, 302 P.3d at 239. A district court abuses its discretion when its decision is manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, or unfair. Id.

B. Attorney-Client Privilege

¶ 18 Fox contends that the district court abused its discretion in finding that the recording at issue was within the scope of discovery permitted by C.R.C.P. 26 because, in Fox's view, the recording is protected by the attorney-client privilege.

¶ 19 The attorney-client privilege "is codified in Colorado by statute and operates to protect communications between attorney and client relating to legal advice." Wesp , 33 P.3d at 196. Specifically, section 13-90-107(1)(b), C.R.S. (2018), provides, in pertinent part, "An attorney shall not be examined without the consent of his client as to any communication made by the client to him or his advice given thereon in the course of professional employment...." The claimant of the privilege has the burden of establishing it, and the burden of establishing a waiver is on the party seeking to overcome the claim of privilege. See Black v. Sw. Water Conservation Dist. , 74 P.3d 462, 467 (Colo. App. 2003).

¶ 20 The attorney-client privilege is not without exception. As pertinent here, we have opined that the presence of a third party during attorney-client communications generally destroys any privilege that might otherwise attach because, "[i]f a client communication is made to an attorney in the presence of a third party, then the communication is ordinarily not considered confidential." Wesp , 33 P.3d at 197 ; see also D.A.S. v. People , 863 P.2d 291, 295 (Colo. 1993) (noting that "the presence of a third person ordinarily destroys the confidentiality required to assert the attorney-client privilege").

¶ 21 If, however, the presence of a third person is necessary to make the conference possible, then that person's presence may not destroy the attorney-client privilege. D.A.S. , 863 P.2d at 295 ; see also Colo. RPC 1.14 cmt. 3 ("The client may wish to have family members or other persons participate in discussions with the lawyer. When necessary to assist in the representation , the presence of such persons generally does not affect the applicability of the attorney-client evidentiary privilege.") (emphasis added). This is because, in such circumstances, the third person's presence does not necessarily negate a finding of intended confidentiality. D.A.S. , 863 P.2d at 295.

*601¶ 22 As the foregoing indicates, to preserve a claim of privilege in cases involving third-party involvement in attorney-client communications, we have required both that the client have an expectation of confidentiality in the communication and that the third party's presence be necessary to facilitate that communication. See, e.g. , id. ; see also Wesp , 33 P.3d at 197 (noting that confidentiality is one of the elements "that must be shown in order for the attorney-client privilege to attach" and that "a communication made in the presence of a third party will not ordinarily receive the protection of the attorney-client privilege").1

¶ 23 Consistent with our above-described case law, Fox does not contend that an expectation of confidentiality alone is sufficient to establish the existence of the attorney-client privilege. Rather, she states that "the essential question is whether [her] parents' presence was necessary 'to assist in the representation.' "

¶ 24 As to this issue, the applicable standard governing necessity appears to be an open question in Colorado. Fox contends that necessity should be determined based on whether the lawyer at issue had a subjectively reasonable belief that the third party's presence was necessary to the consultation. Other authority, in contrast, suggests that necessity is to be determined based on an objective standard.

¶ 25 For example, section 70 of the Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers provides that privileged persons include agents of either the client or the lawyer "who facilitate communications between them." Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers § 70 (2000). Comment f to that section then explains, in pertinent part, "A person is a confidential agent for communication if the person's participation is reasonably necessary to facilitate the client's communication with a lawyer...." Id. at cmt. f.

¶ 26 Many courts that have addressed this issue likewise appear to have applied an objective standard for determining whether a third party's presence was necessary to facilitate an attorney-client communication. See, e.g. , Egiazaryan v. Zalmayev , 290 F.R.D. 421, 431 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (concluding that a client waived attorney-client privilege when he shared documents with a public relations firm retained by his attorneys because the client had failed to show that the public relations firm's participation was " 'nearly indispensable' or otherwise necessary to facilitate his communications with his attorneys."); State v. Shire , 850 S.W.2d 923, 931 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993) ("The presence of a third person ... such as a relative or friend of the client, who is not essential to the transmission of information or whose presence is not reasonably necessary for the protection of the client's interest, will vitiate the privilege."); Am. Zurich Ins. Co. v. Mont.Thirteenth Judicial Dist. Court , 364 Mont. 299, 280 P.3d 240, 247 (2012) ("Disclosure to third parties waives attorney-client privilege unless disclosure is necessary for the client to obtain informed legal advice.").

¶ 27 Applying these principles, courts have found that a third party's presence was reasonably necessary when, for example, (1) a prisoner who could not write in English had relied on another person to assist him in writing a letter to his attorney, State v. Loponio , 88 A. 1045, 1047-48, 85 N.J.L. 357 (N.J. 1913), and (2) an elderly woman was accompanied by her daughter to a meeting with her attorney and the woman depended on her daughter to put her "sufficiently at ease to communicate effectively with counsel" about "what was probably the most traumatic experience of her life,"

*602Stroh v. Gen. Motors Corp. , 213 A.D.2d 267, 623 N.Y.S.2d 873, 874 (1995) (noting that communications to counsel through one serving as an agent of the client in order to facilitate such communications are generally privileged).

¶ 28 In contrast, we have found no applicable cases-and Fox cites none-in which necessity was based solely on an attorney's subjective view as to whether a third person's presence was necessary to facilitate an attorney-client communication.

¶ 29 We are persuaded by those authorities that have adopted an objective standard of necessity and conclude that the presence of a third party during an attorney-client communication will ordinarily destroy the privilege unless the third party's presence was reasonably necessary to the consultation or another exception applies. In our view, such a standard properly protects the attorney-client privilege, avoids the tactical gamesmanship that could result were third parties to be permitted to participate in attorney-client communications without clear and consistent limitations,2 and allows those who truly need help in communicating with their attorneys to employ such assistance without sacrificing the important protections that the attorney-client privilege affords.

¶ 30 In reaching this conclusion, we are not persuaded otherwise by Fox's reliance on Colo. RPC 1.14(b). That rule provides, in part, that "the lawyer may take reasonably necessary protective action, including consulting with individuals ... that have the ability to take action to protect the client" when the lawyer "reasonably believes that the client has diminished capacity." We perceive nothing in this rule that extends the attorney-client privilege to communications involving third persons merely based on the attorney's subjective belief that the third person's presence was necessary to facilitate a consultation. To the contrary, when read as a whole, Colo. RPC 1.14 merely allows an attorney who is representing a client with diminished capacity to take reasonable action (including seeking the appointment of a guardian ad litem, conservator, or guardian) to protect the client's interests and, as part of such action, to reveal confidential information to the extent reasonably necessary to protect those interests. See Colo. RPC 1.14 (b)-(c).

¶ 31 The question thus becomes whether Fox has demonstrated that her parents' presence was reasonably necessary to the consultation that Leventhal recorded. Addressing this question directly, the district court found that Fox had not shown that her mental capacity was "diminished such that the presence of her parents was necessary to assist in the representation." In so concluding, the court deemed persuasive defendants' evidence demonstrating that Fox had made numerous assertions on social media prior to the meeting with Leventhal indicating that her symptoms had "disapprared [sic]" and that "it's as if nothing happened...." The district court thus concluded that Fox's parents' presence during the consultation destroyed any privilege that would otherwise have attached to a recording of that consultation.

¶ 32 Because these findings were amply supported by the evidence in the record, we cannot say that the court abused its discretion in concluding that Fox's parents' presence undermined an assertion of privilege, notwithstanding the fact that Fox had introduced evidence to the contrary. It was for the district court to make findings on the conflicting evidence, the record here (including Fox's own conflicting statements) was sufficient to allow the court to do so and supports its findings, and, in such circumstances, we are hesitant to interfere with the court's proper exercise of its discretion in ruling without an evidentiary hearing. See People in Interest of A.J.L. , 243 P.3d 244, 250 (Colo. 2010) (noting that we will set aside a district court's factual findings only when those findings are so clearly erroneous as to find no support in the record);

*603People in Interest of M.S.H. , 656 P.2d 1294, 1297 (Colo. 1983) ("Though the record presents conflicting evidence on some matters, it is the trial court's province to judge the credibility of the witnesses, the sufficiency, probative effect and weight of the evidence, and the inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the evidence.").

¶ 33 In reaching this conclusion, we are not unmindful of the necessity in some circumstances for clients or prospective clients to have third parties assist them during attorney-client consultations. Nor should our ruling be read to discourage such assistance when it is necessary. We merely conclude that, on the facts of this case, the district court did not err when it found that Fox had not shown the requisite necessity to preserve her claim of privilege.

C. Arguments Raised on Reconsideration

¶ 34 Fox next contends that the district court abused its discretion in declining to address her arguments, made for the first time in a motion for reconsideration, that (1) her parents' presence during the initial conference with Leventhal did not destroy the attorney-client privilege because they were prospective clients of Leventhal's, were acting as her agents, and shared a common interest with her in the lawsuit and (2) the recording was protected under the work-product doctrine and defendants had not demonstrated a substantial need to discover that recording.

¶ 35 C.R.C.P. 121, § 1-15(11) provides, in pertinent part:

Motions to reconsider interlocutory orders of the court, meaning motions to reconsider other than those governed by C.R.C.P. 59 or 60, are disfavored. A party moving to reconsider must show more than a disagreement with the court's decision. Such a motion must allege a manifest error of fact or law that clearly mandates a different result or other circumstance resulting in manifest injustice.

¶ 36 Colorado cases addressing this rule have consistently concluded that a district court generally does not abuse its discretion by refusing to consider new arguments and evidence submitted in motions to reconsider. See, e.g. , Hice v. Lott , 223 P.3d 139, 149 (Colo. App. 2009) ; Bowlen v. FDIC , 815 P.2d 1013, 1015 (Colo. App. 1991).

¶ 37 Moreover, Fox has not explained why she could not have raised these arguments before the district court granted defendants' motion to compel the production of the recording. Nor has she demonstrated that upholding the district court's ruling will result in manifest injustice, particularly given that her parents testified in their depositions, without objection on the ground of privilege, to the conversation with Leventhal and to the facts comprising the substance of the recording at issue. See Graven v. Vail Assocs., Inc., 888 P.2d 310, 316 (Colo. App. 1994) (noting that the plaintiff had neither asserted nor established that the factual information contained in later-filed affidavits was not known by or available to him until after the court had entered its order granting summary judgment, and therefore concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion to reconsider, which was based on such new information), rev'd on other grounds, 909 P.2d 514 (Colo. 1995) ; see also Sousaris v. Miller , 993 P.2d 539, 547 (Haw. 2000) ("As this court has often stated, '[t]he purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to allow the parties to present new evidence and/or arguments that could not have been presented during the earlier adjudicated motion.' Reconsideration is not a device to relitigate old matters or to raise arguments or evidence that could and should have been brought during the earlier proceeding.") (quoting First Ins. Co. of Haw ., Ltd. v. Lawrence , 881 P.2d 489, 504 (Haw. 1994) ).

¶ 38 Accordingly, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in declining to consider the arguments that Fox raised for the first time in her motion for reconsideration, and we do not reach the merits of those arguments.

III. Conclusion

¶ 39 For these reasons, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in (1) determining that the recording of the *604attorney-client conference at issue is not protected by the attorney-client privilege, given the presence of third parties who were not reasonably necessary to facilitate the communication, and (2) declining to consider the new arguments that Fox raised for the first time in her motion for reconsideration.

¶ 40 Accordingly, we discharge the rule to show cause.

JUSTICE HOOD specially concurs.

JUSTICE SAMOUR dissents, and CHIEF JUSTICE COATS and JUSTICE BOATRIGHT join in the dissent.