In this health care liability action, the trial court granted the defendants’ motions to compel the plaintiff to produce expert witness materials despite the plaintiff’s claim of the work product doctrine. The trial court subsequently denied the plaintiff’s motion for interlocutory appeal. Upon the plaintiff’s application, this Court granted leave for an extraordinary appeal. Determining that the plaintiff has waived any privilege or protection for specific materials requested by the defendants, including expert witnesses’ notes, draft reports, and communications with counsel, we affirm the trial court’s grant of the defendants’ motions to compel, inclusive of the trial court’s proviso allowing the plaintiff to present specific materials for review if she believes they contain mental impressions of her counsel. However, also determining the trial court’s order to be overly broad, we modify the language of the order to more closely track the language of Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 26.02(4)(A)(i) and the defendants’ specific requests.

Because the notice of appeal in this case was not timely filed this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

Because the notice of appeal in this case was not timely filed this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

BOGGS, Circuit Judge. Brothers Marshane and Terry Woods were convicted in 2005 of conspiring to distribute crack and powder cocaine. In seeking new sentences under the First Step Act of 2018, they confirmed that they were career offenders, and the district court relied on this consideration in deciding the amount by which it reduced their sentences. On appeal, the Woods brothers now argue that the district court erred by failing to recognize that, under current law, they were never career offenders. While an error occurred, it was invited by the defendants and was not so plain as to warrant remand. We affirm.

NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge. Zahra Bouye sued attorney James Bruce for violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. She alleged that Bruce, representing Mariner Finance, LLC, subjected her to an abusive debt-collection lawsuit in state court. The district court dismissed her complaint as time-barred and dismissed Bruce’s later request for attorney’s fees. Both appealed. Because one of Bouye’s claims falls within the statute of limitations, we reverse both rulings and remand for further proceedings.

In April of 2013, Defendant, Yvette Adele Slee, was convicted of aggravated child abuse and attempted first degree murder for suffocating the victim, Defendant’s eight-month-old child. She was sentenced to an effective sentence of 22 years in incarceration. Subsequently, in May of 2018, the victim died as a result of complications from injuries originally sustained by the aggravated child abuse. Defendant was then indicted for first degree felony murder, the subject offense of this direct appeal. After a bench trial, Defendant was found guilty as indicted. Defendant’s sole issue on appeal is whether her conviction for first degree felony murder violates double jeopardy. After a review of the record, the briefs, and applicable authorities, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This matter is before this court on a Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 9 interlocutory appeal to determine “whether the trial court erred in determining that it cannot order a new trial on the issue of punitive damages only.” Under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 59.07, “[a] new trial may be granted to all or any of the parties and on all or part of the issues in an action . . . .” Accordingly, this court concludes that trial courts may order new trials addressing the limi

After Mother filed a notice of appeal of the termination of her parental rights, her appointed counsel filed what was characterized as a brief, but which contained no statement of facts, no statement of the case, and no argument. The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services argues that Mother’s appeal should be waived under these circumstances. Based on the Tennessee Supreme Court’s opinion in In re Carrington H., 483 S.W.3d 507 (Tenn. 2016), we are not at liberty to waive consideration of either the grounds for termination or the best interests of the child despite the deplorable state of Mother’s “brief.” Following our review, we reverse the trial court’s finding of the ground of abandonment based on the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services’ decision not to defend that ground. We affirm the remaining grounds, as well as the trial court’s finding that termination was in the child’s best interest.

The Defendant, Jimmie Elwood Shelton, appeals the trial court’s order revoking his probation and ordering him to serve the balance of his sentence in confinement. While on probation, the Defendant was again charged with multiple additional crimes. After a hearing, the trial court revoked the Defendant’s probation and ordered him to serve the remainder of his sentence in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that the trial court abused its discretion when it revoked his probation and when it ordered him to confinement. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

Defendant, Kevin Meadows, was convicted as charged by a Jackson County Criminal Court jury of felony murder, aggravated arson, theft of property valued between $1,000 and $2,500, and two counts of tampering with evidence. The trial court imposed an effective life sentence. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred in admitting Facebook Messenger communications when the State failed to properly authenticate the messages by establishing that the account belonged to Defendant. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.