Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantlitigationdiscoverytestimonymotioncivil procedure
plaintiffdefendantlitigationdepositionhearingtestimonymotion

Related Cases

Wultz v. Bank of China Ltd., 61 F.Supp.3d 272
View Case »
In re Scholastic Corp. Sec. Litigation, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2000 WL 91939, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 90,744
View Case »
Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, 17 Misc.3d 1105(A), 851 N.Y.S.2d 57 (Table), 2007 WL 2822423, 2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 51832(U)
View Case »
Security National Bank of Sioux City, Iowa v. Abbott Laboratories, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2013 WL 12140998
View Case »
Quail Cruises Ship Management Ltd. v. Agencia De Viagens CVC Limitada, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2010 WL 2926042
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Hamilton v. Canal Barge Co., Inc., 395 F.Supp. 975, 20 Fed.R.Serv.2d 1094

Facts

The plaintiffs brought a wrongful death action and moved to compel the defendant, Petrolane, to produce five eyewitness statements taken by the defendant's insurance adjuster on the day of the accident. The magistrate initially denied the motion, but the District Court later reviewed the memoranda and authorities, ultimately deciding that the statements were crucial for the plaintiffs, especially since the injured party was deceased and could not provide his own testimony.

At the hearing on their motion, the court orally granted their request to see the statement of a witness who was at that time in Scotland, and indicated that it would rule on the other statements after further memoranda were filed.

Issue

Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to discover eyewitness statements taken by the defendant's insurance adjuster, which were claimed to be prepared in anticipation of litigation.

Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to discover eyewitness statements taken by the defendant's insurance adjuster, which were claimed to be prepared in anticipation of litigation.

Rule

Under Rule 26(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, material prepared in anticipation of litigation may be discoverable if the party seeking discovery shows substantial need for the materials and that they cannot obtain the substantial equivalent without undue hardship.

Although taken by an insurance adjuster, these statements fall clearly within the Rule 26(b)(3) category of material ‘prepared in anticipation of litigation.’

Analysis

The court found that the plaintiffs demonstrated a substantial need for the eyewitness statements, as they provided crucial accounts of the accident in a case where the injured party could not testify. The court emphasized that these statements were not directed to a collateral issue and were essential for the plaintiffs' case. The court also noted that the statements were taken shortly after the accident, making them more reliable than later accounts.

There is substantial need of these statements; not only are they eyewitness accounts of the accident at issue, in a case where the injured party is no longer alive to give his own account, but they also represent the accounts given by all of the available witnesses.

Conclusion

The District Court ordered the defendant, Petrolane, to produce the eyewitness statements within five days, setting aside the magistrate's previous order denying the motion.

The court has reached this conclusion, however, only after examining memoranda and being informed of facts not given to the United States Magistrate when he made his determination.

Who won?

Plaintiffs prevailed in this case because the court recognized their substantial need for the eyewitness statements, which were critical to their wrongful death claim.

The plaintiffs here argue that they are entitled to obtain these statements because they give a fresh, contemporaneous account of the accident; the accuracy of deposition testimony, the plaintiffs' alternative, would suffer because of lapse of time.

You must be