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

litigationattorneydepositiondiscoverynegligenceliabilityappealcorporationproduct liabilitystrict liabilityattorney-client privilegework-product doctrine
plaintiffdefendantlitigationattorneydiscoverynegligenceliabilityappealproduct liabilitystrict liabilityattorney-client privilegework-product doctrine

Related Cases

U.S. v. Adlman, 134 F.3d 1194, 81 A.F.T.R.2d 98-820, 98-1 USTC P 50,230, 39 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1189
View Case »
Koen Book Distributors, Inc. v. Powell, Trachtman, Logan, Carrle, Bowman & Lombardo, P.C., 212 F.R.D. 283
View Case »
New Alaska Development Corp. v. Guetschow, 869 F.2d 1298
View Case »
Goesel v. Boley Intern. (H.K.) Ltd., 738 F.3d 831, 42 Media L. Rep. 1033
View Case »
Doe v. United States Swimming, Inc., 200 Cal.App.4th 1424, 133 Cal.Rptr.3d 465, 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 14,149, 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 16,829
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Shelton v. American Motors Corp., 805 F.2d 1323, 55 USLW 2331, 6 Fed.R.Serv.3d 568, 22 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 125

Facts

Coletta Shelton died in an accident when the Jeep CJ-5 she was driving overturned in Sebastian County, Arkansas. Her parents filed a product liability action against the manufacturers, American Motors Corporation (AMC), alleging strict liability, negligence, and failure to warn. The case faced numerous discovery disputes, particularly regarding the deposition of AMC's in-house counsel, Rita Burns, who refused to answer questions about the existence of documents related to rollover tests and accidents, claiming protection under the work-product doctrine.

Coletta Shelton died as a result of an accident that occurred when the Jeep CJ–5 she was driving overturned on a roadway in Sebastian County, Arkansas. The Jeep CJ–5 was designed, manufactured, and sold by the defendants (hereinafter referred to collectively as AMC). Coletta's parents filed this product liability action against AMC, alleging various theories of recovery, including strict liability, negligence, and failure to warn.

Issue

Whether the acknowledgment of the existence of corporate documents by opposing counsel is protected by the work-product doctrine or the attorney-client privilege.

The issue on appeal is whether a deponent's mere acknowledgment of the existence of corporate documents is protected by the work-product doctrine or the attorney-client privilege.

Rule

The work-product doctrine protects materials prepared in anticipation of litigation, including an attorney's mental impressions, opinions, and legal theories, from discovery.

The work-product doctrine not only protects from discovery materials obtained or prepared in anticipation of litigation, but also the attorney's mental impressions, including thought processes, opinions, conclusions, and legal theories.

Analysis

The court determined that Burns' acknowledgment of the existence of documents would reveal her mental impressions and legal theories, which are protected as work product. The court emphasized that the mere acknowledgment of document existence would indicate which documents Burns considered significant in her defense preparation, thus disclosing her selective process.

Consequently, we hold that where, as here, the deponent is opposing counsel and opposing counsel has engaged in a process of selecting and compiling documents in preparation for litigation, the mere acknowledgment of the existence of those documents would reveal counsel's mental impressions, which are protected as work product.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision to impose a default judgment, concluding that the information sought was protected by the work-product doctrine and that the imposition of such a severe sanction was unwarranted.

Because the information sought by the plaintiffs was protected as work product, we hold that the imposition of default judgment was erroneous.

Who won?

American Motors Corporation (AMC) prevailed in the appeal, as the Court of Appeals found that the information sought was protected by the work-product doctrine.

The court held that the imposition of default judgment was erroneous. The information sought was protected by the work-product doctrine as 'mental impressions' of opposing counsel.

You must be