No specific laws identified for this ruling.
We granted the Rule 9 application for an interlocutory appeal filed by The Krystal Company ("Krystal") to consider whether certain communications between Krystal's chief legal officer and David Jungling ("Jungling"), an employee of Krystal vendor Denali Sourcing Services, Inc. ("Denali"), are protected by attorney-client privilege. Waste Administrative Services, Inc. ("WASI"), which provided refuse service for Krystal, sued Krystal, Denali, and Jungling in the Circuit Court for Knox County ("the Trial Court") alleging that Krystal breached their contract by unilaterally terminating it and that Denali and Jungling induced the breach. The Trial Court held that communications between Jungling and Krystal's chief legal officer after June 9, 2014— at which time Krystal and Denali executed a master agreement—are protected by attorney-client privilege while prior communications are not. We hold that Jungling was the functional equivalent of a Krystal employee as of October 31, 2013 when he was told by Krystal's President to "take lead" on Krystal's dealings with WASI, and that his subsequent communications with Krystal's chief legal officer qualify for attorney-client privilege belonging to Krystal. We, therefore, modify the judgment of the Trial Court and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.
The Dispute
This case involved a fight over whether certain communications should be kept private under attorney-client privilege. Waste Administrative Services (WASI), a trash collection company that provided services to restaurant chain Krystal, sued Krystal along with Denali (a vendor company) and David Jungling (a Denali employee). The specific dispute centered on conversations between Krystal's chief legal officer and Jungling, with disagreement over whether these communications should be protected as confidential attorney-client discussions.
The Court's Decision
The Tennessee Court of Appeals sent the case back to the lower court without making a final ruling. The court agreed to hear this interlocutory appeal (meaning they reviewed the case while it was still ongoing) specifically to examine the attorney-client privilege question, but did not resolve the underlying employment law claims.
What This Means for Workers
While this case doesn't establish new worker protections, it highlights how complex legal relationships can develop when employees work for vendor companies that serve larger corporations. Workers should understand that communications between their employers and client companies may sometimes involve legal complexities, and that courts carefully examine what communications deserve legal protection.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Plaintiff brought claims against Knox County and the County Clerk based on allegedly discriminatory employment practices. The trial court determined that Plaintiff committed serious discovery violations and imposed as a sanction the exclusion of certain evidence. With this evidence excluded, the…
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 3 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.