By Timothy S. Donahue
Top Takeaways:
Court fight: Reynolds seeks to block subpoena requiring in-house lawyer to testify in Altria royalty dispute
Privilege clash: The company argues that live testimony risks exposing protected legal communications.
Bigger stakes: Case involves vaping technology royalties between two of the industry’s biggest companies
A courtroom fight between two tobacco giants is now zeroing in on privilege.
R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. has asked a North Carolina court to quash a subpoena that would require one of its in-house attorneys to testify live in an ongoing royalty dispute with Altria Group, arguing that prior deposition testimony should suffice.
The main question is whether the court will require live testimony from corporate counsel or let the case proceed with a recorded deposition—an increasingly debated issue in complex commercial litigation.
According to the filing, Reynolds said requiring its attorney to appear in person would be “unnecessary and unduly burdensome,” particularly given that sworn testimony has already been preserved.
The company also raised concerns about privileges, arguing that compelling live testimony risks infringing on protected attorney-client communications and internal legal strategy.
“The subpoena seeks testimony that is either cumulative of prior deposition testimony or protected by the attorney-client privilege,” Reynolds argued, according to court filings.
The dispute arises from a larger royalty disagreement related to vaping technology and previous agreements between the companies, both of which have heavily invested in next-generation nicotine products.
Although details of the underlying royalty structure remain confidential in certain parts of the case, the litigation highlights ongoing tensions over intellectual property, licensing, and competitive positioning in the vapor market.
A longtime tobacco attorney told Nicotine Insider that she questioned why the in-house lawyer initially testified, acknowledging that she knew little about the case. She said that if the lawyer had already testified, they had already waived some privilege, and the likely outcome would be the court allowing the live testimony, “but with some parameters.”
Reynolds’ motion highlights the role of in-house counsel in litigation.
Courts are usually cautious about forcing attorneys to testify, especially when the information can be obtained through other means. Reynolds relied on that principle, arguing that Altria had already had a full chance to question the attorney during deposition.
“The deposition testimony provides a complete and adequate record for the court’s consideration,” the company said, contending that additional live testimony would add little value while increasing legal risk.
