Salas v. United Airlines, Inc.

Background

United submitted the disputed email, identified as UnitedSales_001325, for the court’s private review. The email was sent by Salas’s United supervisor and forwarded a doctor’s note that Salas had provided to five recipients. Only one recipient was identified as a United in-house lawyer. The supervisor did not ask the recipients to respond or request legal advice.

United asserted that the recipients may have been members of its Disciplinary Review Panel and that the email was protected by attorney-client privilege. The opinion describes the panel as potentially having a business function—deciding whether to terminate Salas for alleged misuse of sick leave—or possibly a legal function as well.

Privilege Ruling

The court held that United had not established that attorney-client privilege applied to the email. When a communication could have both a legal purpose and a business purpose, the party claiming privilege must show that its primary purpose was to give or receive legal advice rather than business advice. United did not meet that burden.

The court emphasized that the email itself did not suggest that the sender was seeking legal advice from the recipients. The presence of a lawyer on a possible review panel also did not by itself establish privilege. Because United failed to establish privilege, the email was not subject to a claw-back, and Salas could keep the copy United had produced.

Privilege Log

Salas suggested in the parties’ joint statement that she had not received a privilege log. United said that she had. The court found that there was no privilege-log dispute for it to resolve at that time. If Salas believed United’s privilege log was deficient, the court directed Salas and United to meet and confer further.

Disposition

The court issued the discovery order resolving the disputed email as described above. It did not decide the privilege-log issue.