Case Title: Paull v. Conoco, Inc.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1988-03-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
Paull v. Conoco, Inc.1988 WY 49752 P.2d 415Case Number: 88-73Decided: 03/30/1988Supreme Court of Wyoming
JOHN PAULL AND 
DARLENE PAULL, PETITIONERS, (PLAINTIFFS),

v.

CONOCO, INC., A DELAWARE 
CORPORATION; CONOCO PIPE LINE COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION; VIC ALBEE, AN 
INDIVIDUAL DOING BUSINESS AS VIC ALBEE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY; LARRY CLYNCH; 
WILLIAM "SKIP" DeHARO; MARK BARKER; DAVE BARNEY; AND RALPH PALMER, RESPONDENTS, 
(DEFENDANTS).

Hugh M. Duncan,Casper, for petitioners.

Richard E. Day, Stuart R. 
Day, Williams, Porter, Day & Neville, P.C., Casper, for Conoco, Clynch, DeHaro, Barker, Barney 
and Palmer.

Mark Zehler, Conoco, Inc., 
Houston, Tex., Robert H. McCrary, Schwartz, Bon & McCrary, Casper, for Albee.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR 
REVIEW ON CERTIORARI

[¶1.]      Plaintiffs as 
Petitioners having filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari pursuant to Rule 
13.01, W.R.A.P., for consideration of a trial court order denying discovery in 
accord with Rule 26, W.R.C.P., wherein as discovery petitioner requested that 
defendant furnish a description of all exhibits produced by them and produced by 
others for them in other litigation which arose out of the same events as this 
suit, which other proceedings have been settled and dismissed by stipulation of 
the litigants;

[¶2.]      A motion as 
submitted to the trial court to enforce discovery in these regards having been 
denied by decision letter and written order of the trial court 
that

"such materials are only 
discoverable upon a showing that the party seeking discovery has a substantial 
need of the materials in the preparation of his case and that that party is 
unable, without undue hardship, to obtain the substantial equivalent of the 
materials by any other means. The Court found that the Plaintiffs had not yet 
made that showing and therefore the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery 
should be denied."

[¶3.]      This Court 
concurs with the trial court that the list or description of exhibits requested 
comes within the purview of Rule 26(b)(3), W.R.C.P., and is consequently subject 
to discovery

"only upon a showing that the party 
seeking discovery has substantial need of the materials in the preparation of 
his case and that he is unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial 
equivalent of the materials by other means."

[¶4.]      In accord with 
the appropriate analysis of the trial court as a construction of the rule and 
its factual determination that particularized need had not been 
shown;

[¶5.]      The Petition for 
Review on Certiorari is

[¶6.]      
DENIED.