Hcc Byas Motion for Protect Order 012115

8/9/2019 Hcc Byas Motion for Protect Order 012115

1/8

1

NO. 2014-55319

HOUSTON COMMUNITY COLLEGE, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF

Plaintiff and

Counter-Defendant,

v. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

RENEE BYAS,

Defendant and

Counter-Plaintiff. 55TH

JUDICIAL DISTRICT

PLAINTIFF HOUSTON COMMUNITY COLLEGES

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 192.6

On June 6, 2014, Plaintiff Houston Community College (HCC or the College) placed

its General Counsel, Defendant Renee Byas, on administrative leave, because the recently

appointed Chancellor of the College, Dr. Cesar Maldonado, had lost faith in Byass ability to

perform her job. That day, the Chancellor instructed Byas not to use her computer after being

was placed on leave. Despite these instructions, Byas retreated to her office to email documents

from her HCC computer to personal email accounts, as well as download documents to at least

one flash drive. The documents she emailed herself and/or saved included confidential attorney-

client work product and attorney-client privileged communications with HCCs in-house counsel

and/or outside counsel. It is the College, not Byas, who is the legal owner of these documents

and the holder of the privileges that attach to them.

Nevertheless, Byas now seeks to use these misappropriated documents in this litigation

against her former employer and client. She has produced many of these documents back to the

College in response to HCCs requests for the production, without any confidentiality

designations at all. In blatant disregard of her duties as the Colleges former attorney, Byass

counsel has even leaked privileged documents to local press in an attempt to curry favorable

1/21/2015 4:13:1Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris Co

Envelope No. 385By: DANIEL FLO

Filed: 1/21/2015 4:13:1

U

noffi

cial

CopyOff

iceof

Chris

Danie

lDis

trict

Cle

rk


2/8

2

coverage. See Ex. A.1 In order to protect the privileged nature of these communications and

documents, and prevent Byas from abusing her former office and exploiting the confidences of

her prior attorney-client relationship, the College seeks a protective order to ensure that such

documents are not disclosed to the public and, accordingly, must be filed under seal. To be

clear, HCC does not currently seek an order permitting it to withhold any documents from

discovery. Instead, HCC respectfully requests this Court enter the attached Protective Order

pursuant to Rule 192.6 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure requiring the parties to maintain

the confidentiality of HCCs confidential, privileged documents.

I.

FACTS

The facts germane to the issue raised in this Motion are not complicated. The College

hired Byas to serve as its General Counsel in 2008. From January 2013 until May 2014,

however, Byas also served as the Acting Chancellor of the Collegea temporary position that

she held while the College searched for a permanent chancellor.2 In May 2014, the College hired

Dr. Maldonado as its permanent Chancellor, at which time Byas resumed her General Counsel

duties. In both of Byass capacities (General Counsel and Acting Chancellor), she had access to

a litany of attorney-client privileged, work-product privileged, and other confidential documents

and communications. Under the Texas Rules of Professional Conduct, she also had a

responsibility to keep those confidences, even after her termination. SeeTex. R. Disciplinary P.

1.05. She has failed to honor this responsibility.

After she was placed on administrative leave, Ms. Byas, in contravention of direct

instructions, took with her hundreds of the Colleges privileged and confidential documents.

1HCC has redacted the privileged information from the version of this exhibit being filed publicly but will

provide an unredacted copy to the Court at the hearing.2While Byas served as Acting Chancellor, a different individual from the Colleges Office of General

Counsel, Destinee Waiters, served as Acting General Counsel.

U

noffi

cial

CopyOff

iceof

Chris

Danie

lDis

trict

Cle

rk


3/8

3

These include communications with outside counsel, legal opinions of outside counsel, and

internal legal communications with the Colleges General Counsel Office (including

communications with Byas in her General Counsel capacity as well Ms. Waiters in her Assistant

and Acting General Counsel capacities). It was exactly this sort of behavior that convinced the

College to first place Byas on administrative leave and then ultimately terminate her

employment. Furthermore, as evidenced by the documents Byas has produced in discovery,

Byas had also been forwarding emails and attachments from her HCC email address to her

personal email address for years.

Since being placed on leave, Byas relied on these attorney-client communications and

documents to support her case during a closed, nonbinding termination hearing, and she intends

to rely on them here, in public court. She has already produced dozens of privileged

communications and documents in this litigation. However, the College, as the holder of the

privilege on these documents, is entitled to enforce their confidentiality.

Further, Byass counsel has leaked at least one document containing privileged

communications to local reporters in an attempt to obtain favorable coverage of this lawsuit. See

Ex. A (redacted by HCC). Not only does Byas seek to expose the Colleges confidential

documents, but she apparently seeks to abuse her prior position of confidence at the College to

leverage an advantage in this case. There could not be a more compelling set of facts to support

the entry of a protective order. Nevertheless, Byas has rejected the Colleges reasonable request

to enter into a narrow protective order that allows parties to designate as Confidential: (a)

privileged communications produced in the lawsuit, and (b) any other documents that HCC

would not be required to share with the public under the Texas Public Information Act. Because

of this, the College is forced to turn to this Court.

U

noffi

cial

CopyOff

iceof

Chris

Danie

lDis

trict

Cle

rk


4/8

4

II. LEGAL AUTHORITIES AND ARGUMENT

In litigation, a public entity is treated as any other litigant. Houston Chronicle Publg Co.

v. Hardy, 678 S.W.2d 495, 501 (Tex. App.Corpus Christi 1984, no writ). A public entity

enjoys the same attorney-client privileges as any other litigant. See, e.g., Health & Human

Servs. Commn v. McMillen, No. 03-13-00303-CV, 2015 WL 134686, at *2 n.1 (Tex. App.

Austin Jan. 8, 2015, no pet. h.) (applying attorney-client privilege rules to the Texas Health and

Human Services Commission); Abbott v. City of Dallas, 3-13-00686-CV, 2014 WL 7466736, at

*1 (Tex. App. Austin Dec. 23, 2014, no pet. h.) (recognizing that City was entitled to withhold

attorney-client privileged documents from production under the TPIA despite missing deadlines

under the statute). And public entities are entitled to receive protective orders in order to protect

privileged or other confidential information from discovery. See, e.g., Flores v. Fourth Court of

Appeals, 777 S.W.2d 38 (Tex. 1989);In re Jobe, 42 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App. Amarillo 2001, no

pet.);Houston Chronicle Publg Co., 678 S.W.2d at 508.

A litigant may have documents protected from public disclosure if there is a specific,

serious and substantial interest which clearly outweighs (1) the presumption of openness, (2) any

probable adverse effect that sealing will have upon the general public health or safety, and no

less restrictive means than sealing records will adequately and effectively protect the specific

interest asserted. TEX.R.CIV.P. 76a.

This case was tailor-made for an order of protection. The College currently seeks

protection (via confidentiality designations) for only two classes of documents: (1) those

documents that contain attorney-client privileged communications and/or work product and (2)

those documents that fall into one of the few, narrow exceptions that the Texas legislature has

expressly carved out, in light of their sensitivity, of the Texas Public Information Act (TPIA).

U

noffi

cial

CopyOff

iceof

Chris

Danie

lDis

trict

Cle

rk


5/8

5

It is self-evident that the College is entitled to protection for these documents against public

disclosure.

First, as regards the Colleges attorney-client privileged communications and documents

misappropriated by Byas, the College has a substantial interest in protecting the confidentiality

of those documents. The attorney-client privilege is the oldest of the privileges for confidential

communications known to the common law. In re XL Specialty Ins. Co., 373 S.W.3d 46, 49

(Tex. 2012) (quoting United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 562 (1989)). The attorney-client

privilege promotes free discourse between attorney and client, which advances the effective

administration of justice.Id. As the confidentiality of attorney-client communications and work

product is one of the bedrock assumptions of our legal system, the adverse effects of unraveling

it and destroying the Colleges privilege greatly outweighs any presumption of openness that the

law ordinarily requires. Further, the College does not have a less restrictive means to prevent

the destruction of the attaching privileges. Either the parties must file these documents under

seal, or the privilege risks being destroyed. It is as simple as that. As Byas has already taken the

documents from the College, the College has no other remedy other than to request the entry of a

protective order.

Second, the College similarly has a substantial interest in shielding any documents from

the public that are not otherwise discoverable through an open records request under the TPIA.

In its wisdom, the Texas legislature enacted the TPIA in order to provide public access at all

times to complete information about the affairs of government and the official acts of public

officials and employees. TEX.GOVT CODE 552.001. However, in doing so, the legislature

carved out a few narrow exceptions to TPIA requests. There is certain information that is not

obtainable through open records requests. These include not only attorney-client information

U

noffi

cial

CopyOff

iceof

Chris

Danie

lDis

trict

Cle

rk


6/8

6

and communications3

but also privacy and personnel records to the extent they contain

confidential information,4 law enforcement information regarding the investigation of crimes or

internal records,5inter-agency memoranda,

6 and information submitted for competitive bids to

the extent that information would give advantage to a competitor or bidder.7 The Texas

legislature specifically exempted these items, among others, from public information requests

because of their sensitive nature. To be clear, the College does not seek an order protecting it

from producingsuch information to Byas in this litigation should it otherwise be discoverable

under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; HCC simply seeks to protect its substantial interest in

protecting the confidentiality of these documents and seeks an order allowing the College to

designate such materials as confidential. The Texas legislature has recognized this interest.

Further, the College has no other means in which to protect this information, to the extent it has

already been misappropriated by Byas or to the extent that the College is required to produce it

in discovery.

The relief the College requests here is narrow. For both classes of documents at stake

here, there is no public interest in seeing those documents disclosed to persons other than the

parties, counsel, and the Courtnotwithstanding the fact that HCC is a public entity, as

evidenced by the TPIA exceptions. Texas law expressly recognizes the sensitivity of such

documents and the compelling reasons why they should be protected. It is simply unjustifiable

that the Colleges documents be exposed in public court when the State of Texasthrough its

historical recognition and protection of the attorney-client privilege rules or through its express

3E.g., TEX.GOVT CODE 552.103 (litigation exception); id. 552.107 (attorney-client privilege); id. 552.111(work product privilege).

4E.g., id. 552.024 (personal information of employees or family members); id. 552.117 (same); id.

552.136 (credit card information); id. 5552.140 (military veterans discharge records).5E.g., id. 552.108.6E.g., id. 552.111.7E.g., id. 552.104, 552.110.

U

noffi

cial

CopyOff

iceof

Chris

Danie

lDis

trict

Cle

rk


7/8

7

carve outs of the TPIAhas already determined that these documents should not be made

publicly available.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the College respectfully requests that the Court order that the

attached Protective Order be entered so that the College may protect its confidential and

privileged information from public disclosure.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Ayesha Najam

Grant J. HarveyGIBBS &BRUNS,LLPState Bar Number: [email protected]

Ayesha Najam

State Bar Number: [email protected]

Ross M. MacDonald

State Bar Number: [email protected]

1100 Louisiana, Suite 5300Houston, Texas 77002

Tel: 713.650-8805

Fax: 713.750.0903

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF /

COUNTER-DEFENDANT

HOUSTON COMMUNITY COLLEGE

U

noffi

cial

CopyOff

iceof

Chris

Danie

lDis

trict

Cle

rk


8/8

8

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

I certify that between December 29, 2014 and January 21, 2015, I conferred in good faith

with counsel for Defendant regarding the relief sought in this Motion, and that the Motion is

opposed.

/s/ Ayesha NajamAyesha Najam

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on this day January 21, 2015, a true and correct copy of the foregoing

instrument was served upon the following counsel of record via the courts electronic filing

system and by email:

Rusty HardinState Bar No. 08972800

[email protected]

Robert GalatasState Bar No. 00787509

[email protected]

Jennifer BrevorkaState Bar No. 240182727

[email protected] McKinney Street, Ste. 2250

Houston, TX 77010

Telephone: (713) 652-9000

Facsimile: (713) 652-9800

/s/ Ayesha NajamAyesha Najam

U

noffi

cial

CopyOff

iceof

Chris

Danie

lDis

trict

Cle

rk

Hcc Byas Motion for Protect Order 012115

Documents

Transcript of Hcc Byas Motion for Protect Order 012115