PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Plaintiff DARLA WILLIAMS moves for an order compelling Defendant SARAH MINER to produce documents withheld on the grounds of privilege under the work-product doctrine. Plaintiffs request that Defendant be ordered to produce said documents by close of business on March 17, 2017.
I. ARGUMENT
A. THERE’S A SUBSTANTIAL NEED FOR STATEMENTS MADE TO THE DEFENDANT’S INSURANCE ADJUSTERS.
Federal Rule 26(b)(3) provides that:
“ordinarily, a party may not discover documents and tangible things that are prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or its representative …subject to Rule 26(b)(4), those materials may be discovered if they are otherwise discoverable under Rule …show more content…
Specifically, statements regarding RFP #2 (ALL DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to witness statements, that refer to relate to an attack on PLAINTIFF by Mr. Ralph Bailey, which occurred in February 2016, at the APARTMENT) and RFP # 3 (ALL DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to witness statements, that refer or relate to an attack on PLAINTIFF by Mr. Ralph Bailey, which occurred in March 2016, at the APARTMENT). However, Defendant contends that the requested discovery statements at issue were made to their insurance adjusters in anticipation of trial and are therefore privileged and protected under the work-product doctrine.
In McNulty v Bally’s Park Place, Inc., 120 F.R.D. 27 (1988), Plaintiff was entitled to discover statements made to Defendant’s insurance provider, agents of the Defendant, prepared in anticipation of litigation for trial. Although the statements given to the insurance adjusters fell within work-product doctrine, it was discoverable by plaintiff because of substantial need where the witness was the only eyewitness to the slip and fall, only two statements were given by him, and independent efforts to reach him were unavailing. Id. at …show more content…
Defendant further contends that the statements made to their insurance adjusters were prepared solely to accompany the complaint in the suit against the Plaintiff. In Green v Baca, 226 F.R.D. 624 (C.D. Cal 2005), the Defendant filed a motion in limine to preclude the testimony of a third party to the Defendant, who was the custodian of records and Special Counsel hired to investigate the Defendant’s department. The Court held that the Defendant’s blanket claim that the applicability of the work product doctrine did not satisfy the burden of proof because the Defendant failed to make a clear showing that the asserted privilege applied. Id. at
Plaintiff DARLA WILLIAMS moves for an order compelling Defendant SARAH MINER to produce documents withheld on the grounds of privilege under the work-product doctrine. Plaintiffs request that Defendant be ordered to produce said documents by close of business on March 17, 2017.
I. ARGUMENT
A. THERE’S A SUBSTANTIAL NEED FOR STATEMENTS MADE TO THE DEFENDANT’S INSURANCE ADJUSTERS.
Federal Rule 26(b)(3) provides that:
“ordinarily, a party may not discover documents and tangible things that are prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or its representative …subject to Rule 26(b)(4), those materials may be discovered if they are otherwise discoverable under Rule …show more content…
Specifically, statements regarding RFP #2 (ALL DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to witness statements, that refer to relate to an attack on PLAINTIFF by Mr. Ralph Bailey, which occurred in February 2016, at the APARTMENT) and RFP # 3 (ALL DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to witness statements, that refer or relate to an attack on PLAINTIFF by Mr. Ralph Bailey, which occurred in March 2016, at the APARTMENT). However, Defendant contends that the requested discovery statements at issue were made to their insurance adjusters in anticipation of trial and are therefore privileged and protected under the work-product doctrine.
In McNulty v Bally’s Park Place, Inc., 120 F.R.D. 27 (1988), Plaintiff was entitled to discover statements made to Defendant’s insurance provider, agents of the Defendant, prepared in anticipation of litigation for trial. Although the statements given to the insurance adjusters fell within work-product doctrine, it was discoverable by plaintiff because of substantial need where the witness was the only eyewitness to the slip and fall, only two statements were given by him, and independent efforts to reach him were unavailing. Id. at …show more content…
Defendant further contends that the statements made to their insurance adjusters were prepared solely to accompany the complaint in the suit against the Plaintiff. In Green v Baca, 226 F.R.D. 624 (C.D. Cal 2005), the Defendant filed a motion in limine to preclude the testimony of a third party to the Defendant, who was the custodian of records and Special Counsel hired to investigate the Defendant’s department. The Court held that the Defendant’s blanket claim that the applicability of the work product doctrine did not satisfy the burden of proof because the Defendant failed to make a clear showing that the asserted privilege applied. Id. at