This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Carpenter (P) filed suit alleging that D had terminated him in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2). P's termination came after he informed D's human resources department in an e-mail that the company was employing undocumented immigrants. Unknown to P, D stood accused in a pending class-action lawsuit of conspiring to drive down the wages of its legal employees by knowingly hiring undocumented workers in violation of federal and state racketeering laws. P was directed to meet with the company's retained counsel in the other case, and counsel allegedly pressured P to recant his statements. When he refused, D fired him under false pretenses. The plaintiffs in the other case sought an evidentiary hearing to explore P's allegations. According to D, P himself had 'engaged in blatant and illegal misconduct' by attempting to have D hire an undocumented worker. It was investigated by retained counsel, and they confirmed the reason for firing. P filed a motion to compel D to produce information concerning his meeting with retained counsel and the company's termination decision. D maintained that the requested information was protected by the attorney-client privilege. The District Court granted P's motion to compel disclosure because D had implicitly waived the privilege through its representations in the other case. D filed a notice of appeal and a petition for a writ of mandamus to the Eleventh Circuit. Both were denied as the order did not meet requirement three from Cohen under the collateral order doctrine. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.