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

plaintiffdefendantlitigationdiscoveryappealtrialmotioncivil procedure
plaintiffdefendantappealtrialmotioncivil procedure

Related Cases

Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 97 S.Ct. 2497, 53 L.Ed.2d 594
View Case »
In re Joint Eastern & Southern Dist. Asbestos Litigation, 52 F.3d 1124, 63 USLW 2644, 25 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,828, 41 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 904, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 14,210
View Case »
Lewis v. United States, 263 A.3d 1049
View Case »
JPMorgan Chase Bank v. Winnick, 228 F.R.D. 505
View Case »
Spivak v. Sachs, 16 N.Y.2d 163, 211 N.E.2d 329, 263 N.Y.S.2d 953
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

McDougall v. Dunn, 468 F.2d 468, 16 Fed.R.Serv.2d 609

Facts

The plaintiff was a passenger in a car driven by the defendant when they crashed into a tree, resulting in the plaintiff suffering serious brain injuries and amnesia. The accident occurred in the early morning hours of February 3, 1968, after the group had been drinking. The plaintiff was hospitalized for nearly a year following the accident and did not retain counsel until two and a half years later. The defendant's insurance carrier had taken statements from the occupants shortly after the accident, which became a point of contention in the discovery process.

The plaintiff was a passenger in a car driven by the defendant when they crashed into a tree, resulting in the plaintiff suffering serious brain injuries and amnesia.

Issue

Did the District Court err in allowing the defendant's counsel to answer interrogatories on behalf of the defendant instead of requiring the defendant to answer personally, and did it improperly deny the plaintiff's motion to produce statements made shortly after the accident?

Did the District Court err in allowing the defendant's counsel to answer interrogatories on behalf of the defendant instead of requiring the defendant to answer personally, and did it improperly deny the plaintiff's motion to produce statements made shortly after the accident?

Rule

Under Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, interrogatories must be answered by the party served, in writing under oath, and signed by the person making them. Additionally, materials prepared in anticipation of litigation may be discoverable if the requesting party demonstrates substantial need and inability to obtain equivalent materials by other means.

Under Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, interrogatories must be answered by the party served, in writing under oath, and signed by the person making them.

Analysis

The court found that the defendant's answers to interrogatories, which were prepared by his counsel, did not comply with Rule 33, as the defendant did not personally sign them. Furthermore, the court determined that the statements made by the defendant and the third occupant shortly after the accident were not protected as work product and were discoverable by the plaintiff, who was unable to reconstruct the events due to his medical condition.

The court found that the defendant's answers to interrogatories, which were prepared by his counsel, did not comply with Rule 33, as the defendant did not personally sign them.

Conclusion

The court reversed the judgment for the defendant and ordered a new trial, requiring the defendant to personally answer the interrogatories and produce the statements taken shortly after the accident.

The court reversed the judgment for the defendant and ordered a new trial, requiring the defendant to personally answer the interrogatories and produce the statements taken shortly after the accident.

Who won?

The plaintiff prevailed in the appeal because the court found that the trial court had made errors that prejudiced the plaintiff's ability to prepare for trial.

The plaintiff prevailed in the appeal because the court found that the trial court had made errors that prejudiced the plaintiff's ability to prepare for trial.

You must be