180 



proper in light of relevant, lawfully obtained non-privileged information which led the Coun that 

 an in camera review wu necessary. 



The Defendant having failed to show that the aiu>mey<lient privilege should be 

 abrogated, the next question arises w to whether or not the Plaintiff and loterveoing PlaintifT met 

 the burdens under CR 65.04(1) to giant a temporary injunction and a return of all documents 

 including the namtive. Tantaznount in deciding this issue is what harm tnay be&n ±e Plaintifla, 

 particuiarly the Inlervening Plaintii^ B & W, if these materials are not returned. 



Although the aaomey-cKeat privilege may not be sacrosanct, it is certainly « bed 

 rock principle tipon which our judicial system tests. It is clear to this Cooit that divulging aay 

 detrimental iofonsation (as admitted by the Defendant) subject to the attomey-cKent privilege 

 would cause the Intervening PUimifF, B & W, to suf^ imnaediste and irreparable hana. The 

 Defendant has violated the contract by reiQoving docunients and has dearly threatened to violate 

 the privilege by using those documents in a lawsuit against the Plaintifr Wyatt and lotovening 

 Plaintiff B & W. The privilege applies to the Defoxlant even though be was a paralegal In Q 

 Grand Juq; Subpoena Duces Tecum. 391 F^Supp. 1029 at 1034 (SDHY. 1975X WilEantt v. 

 TransWorld Airlbea. Inc.. 588 F.Supp. 1037 at 1044 (WJ). Mo. 1984). The privilege appHes 

 not only to die docunmts stolen, but the knowledge garnered by die Defendant during his 

 employment with Ae PItinliff Wyatt American Moton Core, v. Huffitutler. 575 N.E.2d 116 

 (Obb 1991). There is do way to provide monetary coii^>ensation for a disclosure of tosh 

 information nor to repair the damage to society's confidence in flie privilege if such a breach is 

 permitted. Such disclosure would be detrimenta.' to the integrity of the Plaintiff Wyatt and the 



