Case Title: Parker et al. v. Mobile Gas Service Corporation et al.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 1120229

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 2013-04-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
REL: 
04/05/2013 
N o t i c e : 
T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l 
r e v i s i o n b e f o r e 
p u b l i c a t i o n i n 
t h e 
advance 
s h e e t s o f 
Southern Reporter. 
R e a d e r s a r e 
r e q u e s t e d t o 
n o t i f y t h e 
Reporter of 
Decisions, 
Alabama 
A p p e l l a t e 
C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r 
Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 
((334) 
2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f 
any t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n 
o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may be made 
b e f o r e t h e 
o p i n i o n i s 
p r i n t e d i n 
Southern Reporter. 
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA 
OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 
1120229 
Ex parte Mobile Gas Service Corporation 
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS 
(In re: Donald R. Parker et a l . 
v. 
Mobile Gas Service Corporation e t a l . ) 
(Mobile C i r c u i t Court, CV-12-900711) 
WISE, J u s t i c e . 
On A p r i l 5, 2012, Donald R. P a r k e r and 
Deborah P a r k e r , 
L o r e n z o M a r i n and V a l e r i e M a r i n , J e r e m i a h H o l l i n s and C a r o l y n 
1120229 
H o l l i n s , Douglas Urban and Ramona Urban, 
L a r r y Pettway 
and 
W i l l i e Pettway, R i t a C o l l i n s , A r t h u r W a l l a c e , Dale T. W a l l a c e , 
Harday E a r l McCracken, 
M e l v i n D a v i s and K i m b l a D a v i s , B e t t y 
Downey, L a r r y S u l l i v a n and B a r b a r a S u l l i v a n , and Donald Sawyer 
and C a r o l y n Sawyer ("the p l a i n t i f f s " ) sued M o b i l e Gas 
S e r v i c e 
C o r p o r a t i o n 
("Mobile G a s " ) ; Jon D a v i s ; James "Mike" 
F i n e ; 
A l l e n Hobbs; Sempra P i p e l i n e s and S t o r a g e C o r p o r a t i o n ; Sempra 
U.S. 
Gas 
and 
Power, 
LLC; 
Bay 
Gas 
S t o r a g e Company; 
P i n e 
E n e r g i e s , 
I n c . ; G u l f South 
P i p e l i n e Company, L.P. 
("Gulf 
S o u t h " ) ; 
Todd 
Waldrop; 
GS 
P i p e l i n e 
Company, 
LLC; 
and 
f i c t i t i o u s l y 
named 
d e f e n d a n t s 
( h e r e i n a f t e r 
c o l l e c t i v e l y 
r e f e r r e d t o as "the d e f e n d a n t s " ) . 
P u r s u a n t t o R u l e 45, A l a . 
R. C i v . P., the p l a i n t i f f s f i l e d a n o t i c e o f i n t e n t t o s e r v e 
a 
n o n p a r t y 
subpoena 
on 
McFadden 
E n g i n e e r i n g , 
I n c . 
("McFadden"), r e q u e s t i n g : 
" A l l 
documents 
r e g a r d i n g 
any 
i n v e s t i g a t i o n , 
s a m p l i n g , s t u d y , or work c o n d u c t e d c o n c e r n i n g the 
s u b j e c t s o f odor or Mercaptan 
i n the E i g h t 
M i l e , 
Alabama community." 
M o b i l e Gas f i l e d an o b j e c t i o n t o the n o t i c e o f i n t e n t t o s e r v e 
a n o n p a r t y subpoena on McFadden and a motion f o r a p r o t e c t i v e 
o r d e r . 
I t a l s o f i l e d , i n camera, a p r i v i l e g e l o g l i s t i n g 352 
documents 
i t contended 
were 
s u b j e c t t o 
the 
w o r k p r o d u c t 
2 
1120229 
p r i v i l e g e . 
On October 
12, 2012, t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t 
o r d e r e d 
McFadden t o t u r n over 349 o f t h e 352 documents l i s t e d i n 
t h e 
p r i v i l e g e 
l o g ; o v e r r u l e d M o b i l e 
Gas's 
o b j e c t i o n t o t h e 
subpoena; and d e n i e d M o b i l e Gas's motion f o r a p r o t e c t i v e 
o r d e r . 
M o b i l e Gas then 
f i l e d 
a p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f 
mandamus r e q u e s t i n g t h a t t h i s C o u r t d i r e c t t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o 
r e s c i n d i t s October 12, 2012, o r d e r c o m p e l l i n g t h e p r o d u c t i o n 
o f 
t h e documents and d e n y i n g 
M o b i l e 
Gas's 
motion 
f o r a 
p r o t e c t i v e o r d e r . 
We g r a n t t h e p e t i t i o n and i s s u e t h e w r i t . 
F a c t u a l Background and P r o c e d u r a l H i s t o r y 
In 2008, a t G u l f South's 
f a c i l i t y i n E i g h t M i l e , 
t h e r e 
was a r e l e a s e o f an o d o r a n t 
c o n t a i n i n g mercaptan. 
F e d e r a l 
r e g u l a t i o n s r e q u i r e t h a t o d o r a n t s be i n j e c t e d 
i n t o n a t u r a l 
gas, w h i c h i s n o r m a l l y o d o r l e s s , as a s a f e t y p r a c t i c e . 
I n 
November 
2011, the Alabama 
Department 
o f 
E n v i r o n m e n t a l 
Management ("ADEM") was n o t i f i e d o f an odor c o m p l a i n t i n 
t h e 
E i g h t M i l e Creek a r e a t h a t was a d j a c e n t t o Cochran Road. 
In 
h i s 
a f f i d a v i t , G. Edward Downing, g e n e r a l c o u n s e l f o r M o b i l e 
Gas, s t a t e d t h a t , i n f a l l 2011, M o b i l e Gas s t a r t e d 
r e c e i v i n g 
c o m p l a i n t s about n a t u r a l - g a s l e a k s i n t h e E i g h t M i l e a r e a ; 
t h a t the c o m p l a i n t s c e n t e r e d around t h e f a c i l i t i e s o f G u l f 
3 
1120229 
South and 
M o b i l e Gas a t W h i s t l e r J u n c t i o n , Alabama; and t h a t , 
on o r b e f o r e March 9, 2012, 
ADEM o r a l l y a d v i s e d M o b i l e Gas 
t h a t ADEM wanted M o b i l e Gas t o conduct an i n v e s t i g a t i o n t o 
e i t h e r 
c o n f i r m o r deny t h e p r e s e n c e 
o f mercaptan i n 
t h e 
s u b s u r f a c e 
s o i l o r groundwater i n 
t h e a r e a . 
He s t a t e d t h a t , 
a l s o on March 9, 2012, 
M o b i l e Gas r e t a i n e d McFadden t o a s s i s t 
w i t h t h e 
i n v e s t i g a t i o n and 
w i t h M o b i l e Gas's response t o 
ADEM. 
Downing 
s t a t e d t h a t , on March 12, 2012, J . 
P a t r i c k 
Courtney, 
J r . , c o u n s e l f o r t h e p l a i n t i f f s , 
c o n t a c t e d him 
and 
t o l d him he r e p r e s e n t e d s e v e r a l p e o p l e who were c o m p l a i n i n g 
about t h e odor i n t h e E i g h t M i l e 
a r e a . 
ADEM 
i s s u e d a 
g r o u n d w a t e r - i n c i d e n t 
l e t t e r t o M o b i l e Gas on March 13, 2012, 
i n which i t r e q u i r e d M o b i l e Gas t o conduct t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n . 
On March 22, 2012, C o u r t n e y and Downing had an i n - p e r s o n 
m e e t i n g 
r e g a r d i n g t h e c o m p l a i n t s o f odor i n 
t h e E i g h t M i l e 
a r e a . 
On A p r i l 5, 2012, t h e p l a i n t i f f s , who r e s i d e d i n 
t h e 
E i g h t M i l e a r e a , 
f i l e d 
t h e i r c o m p l a i n t , 
a l l e g i n g 
n u i s a n c e , 
a g g r a v a t e d n u i s a n c e , n e g l i g e n c e , and wantonness a g a i n s t t h e 
d e f e n d a n t s 
a r i s i n g 
from t h e r e l e a s e o f m e r c a p t a n .
1 
The 
1 T h e r e a r e 
f o u r o t h e r l a w s u i t s a r i s i n g from t h e 
mercaptan 
r e l e a s e . 
However, t h i s mandamus p e t i t i o n does n o t i n v o l v e 
4 
1120229 
c o m p l a i n t a l l e g e d t h a t G u l f South s o l d n a t u r a l gas t o M o b i l e 
Gas; 
t h a t p o s s e s s i o n of the n a t u r a l gas was 
t r a n s f e r r e d a t 
G u l f 
South's 
W h i s t l e r 
J u n c t i o n 
f a c i l i t y ; 
t h a t , 
a t 
t h a t 
f a c i l i t y , mercaptan was mixed and/or i n j e c t e d i n t o the n a t u r a l 
gas; 
t h a t the d e f e n d a n t s "caused and/or a l l o w e d n a t u r a l gas 
and/or Mercaptan t o escape from i t s f a c i l i t i e s such t h a t same 
have been r e l e a s e d i n t o the environment i n c l u d i n g groundwater 
a q u i f e r s , ponds, s t r e a m s , and the atmosphere"; and t h a t the 
d e f e n d a n t s ' 
a c t i o n s 
have 
exposed 
the 
p l a i n t i f f s , 
t h e i r 
f a m i l i e s , and t h e i r p r o p e r t i e s t o n o x i o u s mercaptan p o l l u t i o n . 
On 
J u l y 1, 2012, the p l a i n t i f f s 
f i l e d 
t h e i r n o t i c e of 
i n t e n t t o s e r v e a n o n p a r t y subpoena on McFadden. 
On J u l y 24, 
2012, M o b i l e Gas f i l e d i t s o b j e c t i o n t o the n o t i c e of the non-
p a r t y subpoena 
t o McFadden. 
I n i t s o b j e c t i o n , M o b i l e Gas 
c o n t e n d e d t h a t i t had r e t a i n e d McFadden as a c o n s u l t a n t i n 
a n t i c i p a t i o n of l i t i g a t i o n , w h i c h i n c l u d e d a s s i s t a n c e w i t h the 
i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f the cause o f the odor t h a t had p r e c i p i t a t e d 
the c o m p l a i n t s , and t h a t the r e q u e s t e d d i s c o v e r y was p r o t e c t e d 
by 
R u l e 2 6 ( b ) ( 4 ) and 
( 5 ) , A l a . R. 
C i v . P., 
because, i t 
a s s e r t e d , 
the 
r e q u e s t i n c l u d e d 
documents 
" p r e p a r e d by 
a 
t h o s e o t h e r c a s e s . 
5 
1120229 
c o n s u l t a n t o f M o b i l e Gas i n 
a n t i c i p a t i o n o f l i t i g a t i o n and/or 
by an e x p e r t who was r e t a i n e d i n a n t i c i p a t i o n o f l i t i g a t i o n 
but who, a t t h i s t i m e , has 
n o t 
been d e s i g n a t e d as an e x p e r t t o 
be c a l l e d as a w i t n e s s a t t r i a l . " 
On August 8, 2012, t h e p l a i n t i f f s 
f i l e d a response t o 
M o b i l e Gas's o b j e c t i o n t o t h e subpoena t o McFadden. 
The 
p l a i n t i f f s 
a s s e r t e d t h a t M o b i l e Gas's r e c o r d s show t h a t 
i t 
r e t a i n e d McFadden " t o conduct an i n v e s t i g a t i o n o r d e r e d by 
ADEM 
w e l l p r i o r t o 
t h e f i l i n g o f 
t h e 
s u b j e c t s u i t " ; t h a t M o b i l e Gas 
had 
p r e v i o u s l y p r o d u c e d 
thousands o f pages o f documents 
g e n e r a t e d by McFadden; t h a t McFadden had p r e v i o u s l y p r o v i d e d 
most 
o f t h o s e 
documents 
t o ADEM and t h e 
E n v i r o n m e n t a l 
P r o t e c t i o n 
Agency 
("EPA") and t h a t 
t h o s e 
documents 
were 
" o t h e r w i s e p u b l i c l y d i s t r i b u t e d " ; t h a t " [ c ] l e a r l y M o b i l e Gas 
d i d n o t 
view McFadden as a ' t r i a l e x p e r t , ' o t h e r w i s e i t 
would 
not have p r o d u c e d 
such 
voluminous 
documentation 
r e g a r d i n g 
McFadden's work; and t h a t , " t o 
t h e 
e x t e n t McFadden i s 
a 
' t r i a l 
e x p e r t , ' M o b i l e Gas 
has 'waived' any 
p r i v i l e g e o r 
work p r o d u c t 
r e s t r i c t i o n on McFadden's 
r e c o r d s . " 
The p l a i n t i f f s 
a l s o 
contended 
t h a t t h e workproduct 
d o c t r i n e does n o t a p p l y t o 
a 
p a r t y who was "'not s p e c i a l l y employed f o r 
a c a s e , ' b u t 
whose 
6 
1120229 
work was p r o v i d e d i n a d i f f e r e n t c o n t e x t " ; 
t h a t t h e r e had 
not 
been any showing t h a t Armbrecht J a c k s o n , LLP, 
a law f i r m t h a t 
r e p r e s e n t e d M o b i l e Gas 
i n the a c t i o n f i l e d by the 
p l a i n t i f f s , 
had r e t a i n e d McFadden; t h a t e v e r y t h i n g 
i n d i c a t e d t h a t M o b i l e 
Gas had d i r e c t l y r e t a i n e d McFadden t o h a n d l e the 
i n v e s t i g a t i o n 
r e q u i r e d by ADEM; t h a t t h e r e 
had 
not been any 
showing 
t h a t 
McFadden 
was 
r e t a i n e d 
i n 
c o n n e c t i o n 
w i t h 
r e n d e r i n g 
l e g a l 
a d v i c e t o M o b i l e Gas; 
t h a t the s e r v i c e s r e n d e r e d by McFadden 
had 
been 
" b u s i n e s s " 
i n 
n a t u r e ; 
and 
t h a t , 
based 
on 
the 
d i s s e m i n a t i o n 
of 
McFadden's 
w o r k p r o d u c t , 
" t h e r e 
was 
no 
' c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y ' a t t a c h e d t h e r e t o by McFadden, M o b i l e Gas, 
or 
M o b i l e Gas c o u n s e l . 
The a s s e r t i o n of ' c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y d i d not  
a r i s e 
u n t i l 
a subpoena was 
i s s u e d 
f o r ALL 
of 
the McFadden  
r e c o r d s . " 
(Emphasis 
and 
c a p i t a l i z a t i o n 
i n 
o r i g i n a l . ) 
F i n a l l y , the p l a i n t i f f s contended t h a t , even i f McFadden 
had 
been s p e c i a l l y employed i n a n t i c i p a t i o n of 
l i t i g a t i o n 
or i n 
p r e p a r a t i o n 
f o r 
t r i a l , 
d i s c o v e r y 
of the r e q u e s t e d documents 
was 
p e r m i s s i b l e upon a showing of e x c e p t i o n a l 
c i r c u m s t a n c e s 
and 
t h a t 
" [ p ] l a i n t i f f s 
o b v i o u s l y 
cannot 
o b t a i n 
the 
d a t a 
o b t a i n e d 
by 
McFadden 
-- 
s o i l 
t e s t s , 
a i r 
t e s t s , 
groundwater 
t e s t s , 
e t c . 
on 
M o b i l e G a s / G u l f 
South 
p r o p e r t i e s s i n c e p r e - s u i t 
d a t e s . " 
7 
1120229 
On August 23, 2012, M o b i l e Gas 
f i l e d 
i t s " R e p l y t o 
P l a i n t i f f s ' Response t o Defendant M o b i l e Gas's O b j e c t i o n t o 
Subpoena t o McFadden 
E n g i n e e r i n g , I n c . and M o t i o n 
f o r 
a 
P r o t e c t i v e Order." 
I n i t s 
r e p l y , M o b i l e Gas s t a t e d : 
"As s e t f o r t h above, McFadden a t a l l times has 
a c t e d as an e x p e r t 
c o n s u l t a n t t o M o b i l e Gas i n 
c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n and M o b i l e Gas's 
response t o ADEM and i n a n t i c i p a t i o n o f 
l i t i g a t i o n 
and p r e p a r a t i o n f o r t r i a l i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e 
l i t i g a t i o n . 
W h i l e t h e r e p o r t s p r e p a r e d by McFadden 
s u b m i t t e d t o ADEM and t h e u n d e r l y i n g d a t a 
(which 
have been p r o d u c e d by M o b i l e Gas) and McFadden's 
communications 
w i t h 
ADEM 
a r e n o t 
p r o t e c t e d , 
McFadden's 
work f o r M o b i l e Gas as a 
l i t i g a t i o n 
c o n s u l t a n t b o t h w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n 
and ADEM demand and t h e l i t i g a t i o n i s 
p r o t e c t e d by 
R u l e s 2 6 ( b ) ( 4 ) and (5) 
o f 
t h e 
Alabama R u l e s o f C i v i l 
P r o c e d u r e . " 
M o b i l e Gas f u r t h e r s t a t e d : 
" M o b i l e Gas was a d v i s e d by ADEM b e f o r e M o b i l e Gas 
c o n t a c t e d McFadden on March 9, 2012 t h a t ADEM would 
r e q u i r e 
t h e 
i n v e s t i g a t i o n 
and M o b i l e 
Gas was 
c o n t a c t e d by P l a i n t i f f s ' c o u n s e l on March 12, 2012, 
o n l y t h r e e days l a t e r . 
... 
When ADEM (and then 
P l a i n t i f f s ' 
c o u n s e l ) 
c o n t a c t e d M o b i l e Gas, M o b i l e 
Gas 
r e a s o n a b l y 
and c o r r e c t l y 
b e l i e v e d t h a t t h e 
p r o s p e c t 
o f r e g u l a t o r y p r o c e e d i n g s 
by ADEM and 
l i t i g a t i o n w i t h c e r t a i n odor c o m p l a i n a n t s was h i g h l y 
p r o b a b l e . ... 
M o b i l e Gas h i r e d McFadden because 
ADEM was r e q u i r i n g a c t i o n by M o b i l e Gas. McFadden, 
t h e r e f o r e , a c t e d as a c o n s u l t a n t i n a n t i c i p a t i o n o f 
l i t i g a t i o n 
and t h e documents 
c r e a t e d by McFadden 
were c r e a t e d when M o b i l e Gas was a n t i c i p a t i n g and 
r e s p o n d i n g t o l i t i g a t i o n . 
See A t l a n t i c 
R i c h f i e l d 
Co., 
(No. 93-CV-0950E(H), Aug. 21, 1997) 
[ ( n o t 
r e p o r t e d i n F. Supp.)] (documents a r e c r e a t e d i n 
8 
1120229 
a n t i c i p a t i o n o f l i t i g a t i o n when t h e y a r e p r e p a r e d 
w i t h a s u b j e c t i v e b e l i e f t h a t l i t i g a t i o n might ensue 
and 
when 
t h e s u b j e c t i v e 
b e l i e f 
i s o b j e c t i v e l y 
r e a s o n a b l e ) . 
" F e d e r a l C o u r t s have e x t e n d e d t h e w o r k - p r o d u c t 
p r o t e c t i o n t o documents p r e p a r e d by 
e n v i r o n m e n t a l 
c o n s u l t a n t s 
i n response 
t o an 
i n q u i r y 
from a 
g o v e r n m e n t a l e n v i r o n m e n t a l 
agency. See I n r e Grand 
 
J u r y 
Subpoena 
(Mark 
T o r f / T o r f 
E n v i r o n m e n t a l 
 
Management) 
, 357 F.3d 900, 910 ( 9 t h 
C i r . [2004]) 
( h o l d i n g 
t h a t 
c e r t a i n 
'dual 
p u r p o s e ' 
documents 
c r e a t e d i n response t o t h e 
EPA i n f o r m a t i o n 
r e q u e s t 
and consent o r d e r were p r o t e c t e d from d i s c o v e r y by 
the 
work 
p r o d u c t 
d o c t r i n e as t h e y 
were 
c r e a t e d 
because o f p o t e n t i a l 
l i t i g a t i o n 
w i t h 
t h e 
EPA); 
A t l a n t i c R i c h f i e l d Co. ... ( h o l d i n g t h a t documents 
c r e a t e d by e n v i r o n m e n t a l 
c o n s u l t a n t s were p r o t e c t e d 
from 
d i s c o v e r y 
by t h e w o r k - p r o d u c t 
d o c t r i n e ) ; 
B i t u m i n o u s Cas. 
Corp. v. Tonka Corp., 140 F.R.D. 381 
(D. 
Minn. 
1992) 
( a p p l y i n g 
t h e 
w o r k - p r o d u c t 
p r o t e c t i o n t o documents c r e a t e d by an 
e n v i r o n m e n t a l 
c o n s u l t a n t i n 
response t o 
a s t a t e p o l l u t i o n agency's 
d i r e c t i v e s t o conduct 
i n v e s t i g a t i o n s and p r e p a r e 
r e p o r t s ) . 
T h e r e f o r e , t h e 
McFadden documents do 
n o t 
l o s e 
t h e w o r k - p r o d u c t 
p r o t e c t i o n 
s i m p l y 
because 
McFadden has p e r f o r m e d d u a l r o l e s by a i d i n g i n t h e 
ADEM i n v e s t i g a t i o n 
and a c t i n g as a t r i a l 
c o n s u l t a n t 
f o r M o b i l e Gas." 
M o b i l e Gas a l s o a s s e r t e d t h a t i t 
had n o t w a i v e d i t s c l a i m o f 
w o r k p r o d u c t 
p r i v i l e g e 
because i t had n o t p r o d u c e d any 
documents t h a t r e l a t e d t o McFadden's 
r o l e as a 
l i t i g a t i o n 
c o n s u l t a n t . 
F i n a l l y , M o b i l e Gas a s s e r t e d t h a t t h e r e were no 
e x c e p t i o n a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s 
t h a t s h o u l d a l l o w t h e p l a i n t i f f s t o 
o b t a i n 
p r o d u c t i o n 
o f McFadden 
documents 
t h a t 
r e l a t e d t o 
9 
1120229 
McFadden's r o l e as a l i t i g a t i o n c o n s u l t a n t . In s u p p o r t of i t s 
r e p l y and motion f o r a p r o t e c t i v e o r d e r , M o b i l e Gas 
s u b m i t t e d 
a f f i d a v i t s from Downing; Norman Waldrop, c o u n s e l f o r M o b i l e 
Gas who p r a c t i c e d w i t h the law f i r m of Armbrecht J a c k s o n , LLP; 
and B r a d Newton, a p r o f e s s i o n a l e n g i n e e r w i t h McFadden. 
On August 26, 2012, M o b i l e Gas 
f i l e d a "Motion t o 
S t r i k e 
or Quash and Supplemental O b j e c t i o n t o I s s u a n c e of Subpoena t o 
McFadden E n g i n e e r i n g , I n c . " 
On August 28, the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
o r d e r e d M o b i l e Gas t o produce a p r i v i l e g e l o g of a l l 
documents 
i t c l a i m e d t o be p r o t e c t e d . On September 27, 2012, M o b i l e 
Gas 
f i l e d a "Motion f o r C o u r t t o Amend Order R e g a r d i n g McFadden 
E n g i n e e r i n g Documents," i n which i t 
moved the t r i a l c o u r t f o r 
l e a v e t o submit i t s p r i v i l e g e l o g i n camera. 
On O c t o b e r 
1, 
2012, M o b i l e Gas s u b m i t t e d a p r i v i l e g e l o g t o the t r i a l c o u r t 
i n camera. 
On 
October 
12, 
2012, 
the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t e n t e r e d an 
o r d e r 
s t a t i n g : 
" I n response t o the p l a i n t i f f s ' 
o r a l motion 
t o 
compel and 
a f t e r a r e v i e w of the p r i v i l e g e l o g of 
M o b i l e Gas w i t h r e s p e c t t o the McFadden E n g i n e e r i n g 
documents, 
i t i s ORDERED t h a t a l l p r i v i l e g e 
l o g 
documents 
be 
p r o d u c e d 
e x c e p t 
f o r 
p r i v i l e g e 
l o g 
documents numbered 12, 35, and 
41. 
10 
1120229 
"The C o u r t f u r t h e r DENIES M o b i l e Gas' o b j e c t i o n 
to 
i s s u a n c e o f a subpoena t o McFadden 
E n g i n e e r i n g 
and 
f u r t h e r DENIES t h e d e f e n d a n t s ' 
m o t i o n f o r a 
p r o t e c t i v e 
o r d e r . " 
( C a p i t a l i z a t i o n i n o r i g i n a l . ) 
On November 26, 2012, M o b i l e 
Gas 
f i l e d i t s p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f 
mandamus w i t h t h i s 
C o u r t . 
S t a n d a r d o f Review 
" ' D i s c o v e r y 
m a t t e r s a r e w i t h i n t h e 
t r i a l 
c o u r t ' s sound d i s c r e t i o n , and t h i s 
C o u r t 
w i l l 
not r e v e r s e 
a 
t r i a l 
c o u r t ' s 
r u l i n g on a d i s c o v e r y 
i s s u e 
u n l e s s t h e 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
has 
c l e a r l y 
exceeded i t s 
d i s c r e t i o n . Home I n s . Co. v. R i c e , 585 
So. 
2d 
859, 862 
( A l a . 1991). 
A c c o r d i n g l y , 
mandamus 
w i l l 
i s s u e t o r e v e r s e a 
t r i a l 
c o u r t ' s 
r u l i n g on a d i s c o v e r y i s s u e 
o n l y 
(1) where t h e r e i s 
a showing t h a t t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t c l e a r l y exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n , and 
(2) where t h e 
a g g r i e v e d p a r t y does n o t 
have 
an adequate remedy by o r d i n a r y a p p e a l . The 
p e t i t i o n e r has an a f f i r m a t i v e burden t o 
prove 
t h e e x i s t e n c e 
o f each 
o f 
these 
c o n d i t i o n s . ' 
"Ex p a r t e Ocwen Fed. 
Bank, FSB, 872 So. 2d 810, 
813 
( A l a . 
2003). 
"Moreover, t h i s C o u r t w i l l 
r e v i e w by mandamus 
o n l y 
those 
d i s c o v e r y 
m a t t e r s 
i n v o l v i n g (a) t h e 
d i s r e g a r d o f 
a p r i v i l e g e , (b) 
t h e 
o r d e r e d 
p r o d u c t i o n 
of 
' p a t e n t l y i r r e l e v a n t o r d u p l i c a t i v e documents,' 
(c) 
o r d e r s 
e f f e c t i v e l y 
e v i s c e r a t i n g 'a 
p a r t y ' s 
e n t i r e a c t i o n o r d e f e n s e , ' and (d) o r d e r s d e n y i n g a 
p a r t y t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o make a r e c o r d 
s u f f i c i e n t 
f o r a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w o f t h e d i s c o v e r y i s s u e . 872 
So. 
2d a t 813-14. 
The o r d e r 
c h a l l e n g e d i n t h i s 
case 
i n v o l v i n g 
a l l e g e d 
work 
p r o d u c t 
and 
t h e 
11 
1120229 
a t t o r n e y - c l i e n t 
p r i v i l e g e 
i s 
r e v i e w a b l e 
under 
c a t e g o r y ( a ) . " 
Ex p a r t e Meadowbrook I n s . Group, I n c . , 987 
So. 
2d 540, 
547 
( A l a . 2007). 
The o r d e r c h a l l e n g e d here i s l i k e w i s e r e v i e w a b l e 
under c a t e g o r y ( a ) . 
D i s c u s s i o n 
I . 
M o b i l e Gas argues t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t e r r o n e o u s l y d e n i e d 
i t s m o t i o n f o r a p r o t e c t i v e o r d e r because, i t s a y s , McFadden's 
work as a c o n s u l t a n t f o r M o b i l e Gas 
c o n s t i t u t e s w o r k p r o d u c t 
t h a t i s p r o t e c t e d by Rule 2 6 ( b ) ( 4 ) 
and 
( 5 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. 
S p e c i f i c a l l y , M o b i l e Gas contends t h a t McFadden worked as a 
l i t i g a t i o n c o n s u l t a n t ; t h a t the documents p r o d u c e d by McFadden 
c o n s t i t u t e d m a t e r i a l s p r o d u c e d f o r a p a r t y ; and t h a t the work 
p e r f o r m e d 
by 
McFadden 
was 
p e r f o r m e d 
i n 
a n t i c i p a t i o n 
of 
l i t i g a t i o n . 
Rule 2 6 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., p r o v i d e s , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : 
"(b) 
D i s c o v e r y 
Scope 
and 
L i m i t s . 
U n l e s s 
o t h e r w i s e 
l i m i t e d 
by 
o r d e r 
of 
the 
c o u r t 
i n 
a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e s e r u l e s , the scope of d i s c o v e r y 
i s as 
f o l l o w s : 
"  
"(4) 
T r i a l P r e p a r a t i o n : M a t e r i a l s . 
S u b j e c t t o 
the p r o v i s i o n s of s u b d i v i s i o n (b)(5) of t h i s 
r u l e , 
12 
1120229 
a 
p a r t y 
may 
o b t a i n 
d i s c o v e r y 
o f documents and 
t a n g i b l e 
t h i n g s 
o t h e r w i s e 
d i s c o v e r a b l e 
under 
s u b d i v i s i o n 
(b)(1) o f t h i s 
r u l e and p r e p a r e d i n 
a n t i c i p a t i o n o f l i t i g a t i o n o r f o r t r i a l by o r 
f o r 
a n o t h e r 
p a r t y 
o r by 
o r f o r t h a t 
o t h e r 
p a r t y ' s 
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e 
( i n c l u d i n g 
t h e 
o t h e r 
p a r t y ' s 
a t t o r n e y , 
c o n s u l t a n t , 
s u r e t y , 
i n d e m n i t o r , 
i n s u r e r , 
or agent) o n l y upon 
a 
showing t h a t t h e 
p a r t y 
s e e k i n g 
d i s c o v e r y has s u b s t a n t i a l need o f t h e m a t e r i a l s i n 
the 
p r e p a r a t i o n o f t h e p a r t y ' s 
case and t h a t t h e 
p a r t y i s 
u n a b l e w i t h o u t undue h a r d s h i p t o o b t a i n t h e 
s u b s t a n t i a l 
e q u i v a l e n t o f t h e m a t e r i a l s by 
o t h e r 
means. I n o r d e r i n g d i s c o v e r y o f such m a t e r i a l s when 
the r e q u i r e d showing has been made, t h e c o u r t 
s h a l l 
p r o t e c t 
a g a i n s t 
d i s c l o s u r e 
o f t h e m e n t a l 
i m p r e s s i o n s , 
c o n c l u s i o n s , 
o p i n i o n s , 
o r l e g a l 
t h e o r i e s o f an a t t o r n e y o r o t h e r 
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f 
a p a r t y c o n c e r n i n g t h e l i t i g a t i o n . 
"  
"(6) 
C l a i m s 
o f 
P r i v i l e g e 
T)-^^-^-^-^ .
-
I 
; 
^ v
-
^ 
1
\ 
A-^ -I- 
^ -.^ 
-
! -^ 
1 ^ 
or 
P r o t e c t i o n 
o f 
T r i a l - P r e p a r a t i o n M a t e r i a l s . 
"(A) 
When 
a 
p a r t y 
w i t h h o l d s 
i n f o r m a t i o n 
o t h e r w i s e 
d i s c o v e r a b l e 
under 
t h e s e 
r u l e s on 
a c l a i m 
t h a t 
i t i s 
p r i v i l e g e d 
o r s u b j e c t 
t o p r o t e c t i o n 
as 
t r i a l - p r e p a r a t i o n 
m a t e r i a l s , 
t h e 
c l a i m 
s h a l l be made e x p r e s s l y and, upon w r i t t e n 
r e q u e s t by 
any 
o t h e r 
p a r t y , 
s h a l l 
be 
s u p p o r t e d by a d e s c r i p t i o n o f 
t h e 
n a t u r e o f 
the documents, communications, o r t h i n g s 
not 
p r o d u c e d 
s u f f i c i e n t 
t o e n a b l e t h e 
demanding p a r t y t o c o n t e s t t h e c l a i m . T h i s 
s u p p o r t i n g 
d e s c r i p t i o n 
s h a l l be s e r v e d 
w i t h i n twenty-one (21) days o f t h e date 
a 
r e q u e s t 
i s 
s e r v e d , 
u n l e s s 
o t h e r w i s e 
o r d e r e d . " 
13 
1120229 
In 
Meadowbrook, 
s u p r a , 
t h i s 
C o u r t 
a d d r e s s e d 
the work-
p r o d u c t p r i v i l e g e as f o l l o w s : 
" A c c o r d i n g t o t h e p e t i t i o n e r s , 
'the documents 
r e q u e s t e d 
by 
Andrews 
f a l l 
s q u a r e l y 
w i t h i n t h e 
p r o t e c t i o n p r o v i d e d by [ A l a . R. C i v . P. 2 6 ( b ) ( 3 )
2 ] , 
as Andrews i s s e e k i n g i n f o r m a t i o n about "the m e n t a l 
i m p r e s s i o n s , c o n c l u s i o n s , o p i n i o n or l e g a l t h e o r i e s " 
s u r r o u n d i n g t h e d e c i s i o n t o t e r m i n a t e 
[ h i s ] w o r k e r ' s 
compensation b e n e f i t s . ' ... 
" ' 
' 
"Andrews 
contends 
t h a t t h e p e t i t i o n e r s 
have 
f a i l e d t o meet [ t h e i r ] burden o f [showing] t h a t t h e 
a d j u s t e r ' s notes a r e work p r o d u c t . ' 
Andrews b r i e f , 
at 
17. 
T h i s 
i s so, because, 
he 
argues, 
t h e 
p e t i t i o n e r s have p r e s e n t e d 
no e v i d e n c e 
i n d i c a t i n g 
t h a t t h e c l a i m s n o t e s , or a n y t h i n g 
e l s e i n t h e i r 
f i l e s were 'prepared i n a n t i c i p a t i o n o f 
l i t i g a t i o n 
or f o r t r i a l . ' 
We 
agree. 
"'"Under Rule 2 6 ( b ) ( 3 ) , t h e p a r t y o b j e c t i n g t o 
d i s c o v e r y 
b e a r s 
t h e burden 
o f 
e s t a b l i s h i n g 
t h e 
elements of t h e w o r k - p r o d u c t e x c e p t i o n . " ' 
Ex p a r t e  
Cummings, 776 So. 2d 771, 774 ( A l a . 
2000) 
( q u o t i n g 
Ex p a r t e 
G a r r i c k , 642 So. 2d 951, 952-53 ( A l a . 
1 9 9 4 ) ) . 
Those elements are ' t h a t (1) t h e m a t e r i a l s 
sought t o be p r o t e c t e d a r e documents or t a n g i b l e 
t h i n g s ; 
(2) t h e y were p r e p a r e d 
i n a n t i c i p a t i o n of 
l i t i g a t i o n o r f o r t r i a l ; and (3) t h e y were 
p r e p a r e d 
by 
or f o r a p a r t y 
or a 
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f 
t h a t 
p a r t y . ' 
Johnson v. Gmeinder, 191 F.R.D. 638, 643 
(D. Kan. 2000); see a l s o 8 C. W r i g h t , A. M i l l e r & R. 
2The s u b s e c t i o n s o f Rule 
2 6 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., were 
renumbered as a r e s u l t of amendments e f f e c t i v e F e b r u a r y 
1, 
2010. 
What were s u b s e c t i o n s 
( b ) ( 3 ) , ( b ) ( 4 ) , and (b)(5) a r e 
now s u b s e c t i o n s 
( b ) ( 4 ) , ( b ) ( 5 ) , and ( b ) ( 6 ) . 
See S o u t u l l o v.  
M o b i l e Cnty., 58 So. 3d 733, 739 ( A l a . 
2010). 
14 
1120229 
Marcus, F e d e r a l 
P r a c t i c e and 
P r o c e d u r e § 2024, 
a t 
336 
(1994) 
. 
"Once '"the p a r t i e s are 'at i s s u e as t o whether 
the document[s] sought [were], i n f a c t , p r e p a r e d 
i n 
a n t i c i p a t i o n of 
l i t i g a t i o n , ' " ' 
the o b j e c t i n g p a r t y 
must make ' " [ a ] n e v i d e n t i a r y showing."' 
Ex 
p a r t e 
 
Cummings, 776 So. 2d a t 774 
( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e 
S t a t e  
Farm Auto. I n s . Co., 
761 So. 2d 1000, 
1002-03 ( A l a . 
2000), q u o t i n g i n t u r n Ex p a r t e G a r r i c k , 642 So. 
2d 
a t 953 
(emphasis a d d e d ) ) . 
I t i s Andrews's p o s i t i o n 
-- and the p e t i t i o n e r s do not deny -- t h a t Andrews's 
motions t o compel p l a c e d the p a r t i e s 'at i s s u e ' as 
t o 
whether 
the 
c l a i m s 
f i l e 
was 
p r e p a r e d 
i n 
a n t i c i p a t i o n of 
l i t i g a t i o n . 
" I n such a case, 
'[a] " b l a n k e t c l a i m " as t o the 
a p p l i c a b i l i t y of the work p r o d u c t 
d o c t r i n e does not 
s a t i s f y the 
[ o b j e c t i n g p a r t i e s ' ] burden of 
p r o o f . ' 
D i s i d o r e v. M a i l C o n t r a c t o r s of A m e r i c a , I n c . , 
196 
F.R.D. 
410, 
413 
(D. 
Kan. 
2000). 
'"That 
burden 
cannot be 
d i s c h a r g e d 
by mere 
c o n c l u s o r y 
or 
i p s e 
d i x i t a s s e r t i o n s . " ' 
I d . ( q u o t i n g McCoo v. Denny's,  
I n c . , 192 F.R.D. 675, 
680 
(D. Kan. 
2 0 0 0 ) ) . 
Where 
the r e c o r d c o n t a i n s 
'no a f f i d a v i t s , memorandums, or 
r e p o r t s 
t o 
s u p p o r t 
the 
[ o b j e c t i n g 
p a r t i e s ' 
c o n t e n t i o n s ] , ' the c o u r t can o n l y ' s p e c u l a t e ' as t o 
whether the m a t e r i a l s 
' f a l l under the w o r k - p r o d u c t 
e x c e p t i o n . ' 
Ex p a r t e 
F u l l e r , 
600 
So. 
2d 214, 
216 
( A l a . 
1992) . See 
a l s o Nutmeg I n s . 
Co. 
v. A t w e l l ,  
V o g e l & S t e r l i n g , 
a D i v . of E q u i f a x 
S e r v s . , 
I n c . , 
120 
F.R.D. 
504, 
510 
(W.D. 
La. 
1988) 
('A 
c l e a r 
showing must be made w h i c h s e t s f o r t h the items 
or 
c a t e g o r i e s 
o b j e c t e d 
t o 
and 
the 
r e a s o n 
f o r 
t h a t 
o b j e c t i o n 
A c c o r d i n g l y , 
the 
proponent 
must 
p r o v i d e the c o u r t w i t h enough i n f o r m a t i o n t o e n a b l e 
the c o u r t t o d e t e r m i n e p r i v i l e g e , and the proponent 
must show by 
a f f i d a v i t t h a t p r e c i s e f a c t s e x i s t 
t o 
s u p p o r t 
the c l a i m of 
p r i v i l e g e . ' ) . 
" I n t h a t c o n n e c t i o n , F r a n c i s P o w e l l argues t h a t 
the ' [ p ] e t i t i o n e r s need not prove t h a t t h e r e was 
any 
15 
1120229 
" a n t i c i p a t i o n " o f l i t i g a t i o n , because l i t i g a t i o n had 
a l r e a d y 
commenced 
when 
t h e s e 
documents 
were 
c r e a t e d . ' F r a n c i s P o w e l l ' s r e p l y b r i e f , a t 17. We 
d i s a g r e e . 
"'Where 
an 
i n s u r e r 
has 
a 
s e p a r a t e 
and 
independent c o n t r a c t u a l duty t o i n v e s t i g a t e a c l a i m , 
the i n s u r e r must s a t i s f y t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f R u l e 
26(b) ( 3 ) [ , 
A l a . 
R. C i v . 
P.,] ... by showing more  
than 
s i m p l y when a document was p r e p a r e d . The 
i n s u r e r ... must show why each document was p r e p a r e d 
and how i t 
was used. ' 
Ex p a r t e S t a t e Farm Mut.  
Auto. I n s . 
Co., 761 So. 2d 1000, 1004 ( A l a . 2000) 
(Lyons, J . , 
c o n c u r r i n g s p e c i a l l y ) 
(emphasis 
added). 
There i s a 'requirement 
[ i n ] 
R u l e 
2 6 ( b ) ( 3 ) o f a 
c a u s a l r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e 
impending 
l i t i g a t i o n 
and t h e p r o d u c t i o n o r use o f t h e documents.' I d . 
The 
i n q u i r y 
' " ' s h o u l d be whether, i n l i g h t o f 
t h e 
n a t u r e o f t h e 
document and f a c t u a l s i t u a t i o n i n t h e 
p a r t i c u l a r case, t h e document can f a i r l y be s a i d t o 
have 
been 
p r e p a r e d 
o r o b t a i n e d 
T
-
-
-
-
^ —
- 
- - p 
^ - T - -
because o f t h e 
p r o s p e c t o f l i t i g a t i o n . ' " ' 
761 So. 2d a t 1002 
( o p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t ) ( q u o t i n g Sims v. K n o l l w o o d  
Park Hosp., 511 So. 2d 154, 157 ( A l a . 1987), q u o t i n g 
i n t u r n B r i n k s Mfg. Co. v. N a t i o n a l P r e s t o Indus.,  
I n c . , 
709 F.2d 1109, 1119 (7th C i r . 1 9 8 3 ) ) . 
Thus, 
'the purpose f o r which a p a r t y c r e a t e d a document 
i s 
the 
fundamental 
r e q u i r e m e n t 
o f t h e R u l e , and 
[ r e g a r d l e s s o f whether] 
l i t i g a t i o n 
i s r e a s o n a b l y 
a n t i c i p a t e d , c e r t a i n , o r even underway, a c o u r t must 
s t i l l u n d e r t a k e an e x a m i n a t i o n o f 
why a document was 
produced.' 
Harper 
v. Auto-Owners I n s . Co. 138 
F.R.D. 655, 661 (S.D. I n d . 1991) (some emphasis 
added). 
See a l s o S t o u t v. I l l i n o i s Farmers I n s . 
 
Co., 150 F.R.D. 594, 597 (S.D. I n d . 
1993); 
Schmidt 
 
v. C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e Auto. A s s ' n , 127 F.R.D. 182, 
184 
(D. Nev. 1989) ('The m a j o r i t y o f cases 
t h a t have 
d e a l t 
w i t h t h e i s s u e 
o f whether 
i n v e s t i g a t i v e 
m a t e r i a l s p r e p a r e d by i n s u r a n c e c l a i m s a d j u s t e r s i s 
w o r k - p r o d u c t p r e p a r e d i n a n t i c i p a t i o n o f l i t i g a t i o n 
have h e l d t h a t 
s i n c e 
i n s u r a n c e companies have a 
r o u t i n e 
duty 
t o 
i n v e s t i g a t e 
a c c i d e n t s , 
such 
16 
1120229 
m a t e r i a l s 
a r e n o t p r e p a r e d 
i n a n t i c i p a t i o n o f 
l i t i g a t i o n b u t a r e p r e p a r e d i n 
t h e o r d i n a r y 
c o u r s e 
of b u s i n e s s absent unique c i r c u m s t a n c e s 
showing 
t h e 
c o n t r a r y . ' ) . 
" I n 
t h i s 
case, 
t h e 
p e t i t i o n e r s 
had an 
independent duty t o h a n d l e and a d m i n i s t e r Andrews's 
worker's 
compensation 
c l a i m . 
C o n s e q u e n t l y , 
t h e y 
cannot s a t i s f y R u l e 2 6 ( b ) ( 3 ) by a b l a n k e t 
o b j e c t i o n 
t o d i s c o v e r y on t h e 
b a s i s t h a t t h e 
m a t e r i a l s sought 
are work 
p r o d u c t . 
"Meadowbrook a l s o contends t h a t i t cannot comply 
w i t h t h e r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t i t p r e s e n t 
'evidence t h a t 
the c o n t e n t s o f 
t h e 
a d j u s t e r ' s notes f a l l w i t h i n 
t h e 
... 
d e f i n i t i o n 
o f work 
p r o d u c t 
p r i v i l e g e 
.... 
w i t h o u t 
d i s c l o s i n g t h e communication 
i t s e l f , 
which 
i s 
p r e c i s e l y what i s sought t o be 
p r o t e c t e d . ' 
Meadowbrook's 
r e p l y 
b r i e f , a t 11-12. 
A g a i n , 
we 
d i s a g r e e . 
R u l e 
2 6 ( b ) ( 5 ) 
[now R u l e 
2 6 ( b ) ( 6 ) ( A ) ] 
s t a t e s , i n 
p e r t i n e n t p a r t : 
"'When 
a 
p a r t y 
w i t h h o l d s 
i n f o r m a t i o n 
o t h e r w i s e d i s c o v e r a b l e under t h e s e r u l e s on 
a c l a i m t h a t i t i s p r i v i l e g e d 
o r s u b j e c t t o 
p r o t e c t i o n as t r i a l - p r e p a r a t i o n m a t e r i a l s , 
the c l a i m s h a l l be made e x p r e s s l y and, upon 
w r i t t e n r e q u e s t by any o t h e r p a r t y , 
s h a l l 
be s u p p o r t e d by a d e s c r i p t i o n o f 
t h e n a t u r e 
of t h e 
documents, communications, o r t h i n g s 
not 
p r o d u c e d 
s u f f i c i e n t 
t o e n a b l e t h e  
demanding p a r t y t o c o n t e s t t h e c l a i m . ' 
"(Emphasis a d d e d . )
2 
"Compliance w i t h R u l e 26 does n o t o b v i a t e t h e 
p r o t e c t i o n a t i s s u e . As t h e f e d e r a l c o u n t e r p a r t t o 
R u l e 26 p r o v i d e s : 
"'When 
a 
p a r t y 
w i t h h o l d s 
i n f o r m a t i o n 
o t h e r w i s e d i s c o v e r a b l e by c l a i m i n g t h a t 
t h e 
i n f o r m a t i o n i s p r i v i l e g e d o r s u b j e c t t o 
17 
1120229 
p r o t e c t i o n as t r i a l - p r e p a r a t i o n m a t e r i a l , 
the p a r t y must: 
" ' ( i ) 
e x p r e s s l y 
make t h e 
c l a i m ; and 
" ' ( i i ) 
d e s c r i b e t h e n a t u r e 
of t h e 
documents, 
communications, 
or 
t a n g i b l e t h i n g s n o t p r o d u c e d 
or 
d i s c l o s e d -- and do so i n a 
manner 
t h a t , 
w i t h o u t 
r e v e a l i n g 
i n f o r m a t i o n 
i t s e l f p r i v i l e g e d o r 
p r o t e c t e d , 
w i l l 
e n a b l e 
o t h e r 
p a r t i e s t o a s s e s s t h e c l a i m . ' 
"Fed. R. C i v . P. 2 6 ( b ) ( 5 ) ( A ) . 
I n o t h e r words, t h e s e 
r u l e s c o n t e m p l a t e t h a t an o b j e c t i n g p a r t y ' s 
showing 
need n o t ' r e v e a l [ ] i n f o r m a t i o n 
i t s e l f p r i v i l e g e d o r 
p r o t e c t e d , ' 
b u t must 
i n c l u d e 
enough 
i n f o r m a t i o n 
r e g a r d i n g each document f o r which t h e p r o t e c t i o n 
i s 
c l a i m e d t o 'enable t h e c o u r t t o d e t e r m i n e ' t h e 
v a l i d i t y o f t h e o b j e c t i o n s . ... 
I I 
"
2A s i m i l a r p r o v i s i o n i s c o n t a i n e d i n A l a . R. 
C i v . 
P. 4 5 ( d ) ( 2 ) , which d e a l s 
w i t h d i s c o v e r y 
from 
n o n p a r t i e s . That s e c t i o n p r o v i d e s : 
"'When i n f o r m a t i o n s u b j e c t t o 
a subpoena i s 
w i t h h e l d on a c l a i m t h a t i t 
i s p r i v i l e g e d 
or 
s u b j e c t 
t o 
p r o t e c t i o n 
as 
t r i a l 
p r e p a r a t i o n m a t e r i a l s , t h e c l a i m s h a l l be 
made e x p r e s s l y and s h a l l be s u p p o r t e d by a 
d e s c r i p t i o n o f 
t h e 
n a t u r e o f 
t h e documents, 
communications, o r t h i n g s not 
p r o d u c e d t h a t 
i s s u f f i c i e n t t o 
e n a b l e t h e 
demanding p a r t y 
t o c o n t e s t t h e c l a i m . ' " 
987 So. 2d a t 547-50. 
18 
1120229 
The i s s u e i n t h i s case i s whether t h e documents on t h e 
p r i v i l e g e l o g were p r e p a r e d i n a n t i c i p a t i o n of 
l i t i g a t i o n . 
The 
p l a i n t i f f s 
argue t h a t M o b i l e Gas has not s a t i s f i e d i t s 
burden o f p r o v i n g 
t h a t t h e w o r k p r o d u c t p r i v i l e g e a p p l i e s t o 
the documents. 
S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e y c o n t e n d t h a t t h e a f f i d a v i t s 
M o b i l e Gas 
s u b m i t t e d i n s u p p o r t of i t s o b j e c t i o n 
t o the 
n o n p a r t y subpoena and motion f o r a p r o t e c t i v e o r d e r d i d not 
c o n t a i n any s p e c i f i c f a c t s i n s u p p o r t t h e r e o f . 
The 
p l a i n t i f f s 
a s s e r t : 
"Mr. Downing's 
a f f i d a v i t admits t h a t McFadden 
was r e t a i n e d 'to a s s i s t w i t h the i n v e s t i g a t i o n and 
M o b i l e Gas's r e s p o n s e t o ADEM.' 
As t o McFadden's 
r o l e 
as a 
t r i a l 
c o n s u l t a n t , 
Mr. 
Downing 
s i m p l y 
s t a t e s : 
'Since McFadden was r e t a i n e d , McFadden has 
a l s o 
s e r v e d 
as a 
c o n s u l t a n t 
t o M o b i l e Gas 
w i t h 
r e s p e c t t o the defense o f t h i s 
a c t i o n 
' 
There 
are 
no 
f a c t s w h i c h show t h a t McFadden was 
h i r e d 
because of t h i s 
l i t i g a t i o n or how i t 
has been used 
as a t r i a l 
c o n s u l t a n t i n a c a p a c i t y d i f f e r e n t from 
i t s 
o r i g i n a l r e t e n t i o n . 
Mr. Downing s t a t e s t h a t he 
a n t i c i p a t e d l i t i g a t i o n on March 9, 2012, when M o b i l e 
Gas 
r e t a i n e d 
McFadden, 
because 
he 
met 
w i t h 
P l a i n t i f f s ' 
c o u n s e l 
March 
22, 
2012 
w e l l 
a f t e r 
McFadden had been r e t a i n e d . 
W h i l e i m p l a u s i b l e a t 
b e s t , 
such 
does 
not 
e s t a b l i s h 
a 
r e a s o n a b l e 
e x p e c t a t i o n of l i t i g a t i o n a t t h e time McFadden was  
r e t a i n e d as r e q u i r e d under Ex p a r t e S t a t e Farm Mut.  
Auto I n s . Co., 761 So. 2d 1000, a t 1003 ( A l a . 
2000) 
(mere f a c t t h a t p a r t y has r e t a i n e d c o u n s e l does not 
g i v e 
r i s e t o a u t o m a t i c 
r e a s o n a b l e 
e x p e c t a t i o n 
of 
l i t i g a t i o n ) . 
19 
1120229 
"Mr. Waldrop's a f f i d a v i t admits t h a t h i s f i r m 
was n o t h i r e d u n t i l a f t e r McFadden had a l r e a d y been 
r e t a i n e d and 
had 
begun i t s i n v e s t i g a t i o n f o r M o b i l e 
Gas. 
There a r e 
no f a c t s i n t h i s a f f i d a v i t s p e a k i n g 
t o 
when o r why McFadden was 
r e t a i n e d ; 
c l e a r l y 
McFadden was n o t r e t a i n e d by d e f e n s e 
c o u n s e l . 
" F i n a l l y , Mr. Newton's 
a f f i d a v i t 
s t a t e s 
t h a t 
M o b i l e Gas r e t a i n e d McFadden f o r 
an ' i n v e s t i g a t i o n 
r e q u e s t e d by ADEM.' 
Mr. Newton's 
a f f i d a v i t 
a l s o 
summarily 
s t a t e s 
t h a t 
i n a d d i t i o n 
t o t h e ADEM 
i n v e s t i g a t i o n , McFadden ' a l s o has p r o v i d e d 
s e r v i c e s 
as a 
l i t i g a t i o n 
c o n s u l t a n t ' 
w i t h o u t any f u r t h e r 
f a c t s s u p p o r t i n g 
t h i s 
c l a i m . 
"These 
a f f i d a v i t s 
i n c l u d e no 
s p e c i f i c 
f a c t s 
s u p p o r t i n g 
M o b i l e Gas's o b j e c t i o n . 
I n s t e a d 
t h e s e 
are c l a s s i c examples 
o f 
t h e 
type o f ' b l a n k e t 
c l a i m s ' 
t h a t w i l l n o t 
s u p p o r t a w o r k - p r o d u c t o b j e c t i o n . The 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
was 
w e l l 
w i t h i n 
i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n 
f i n d i n g 
t h a t 
M o b i l e Gas had f a i l e d t o meet 
i t s 
burden o f p r o v i d i n g 
s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n t i a r y 
s u p p o r t 
f o r i t s o b j e c t i o n . " 
A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h e p l a i n t i f f s 
c o n t e n d t h a t " t h e 
e v i d e n c e i s 
c l e a r t h a t McFadden was r e t a i n e d ' i n 
t h e r e g u l a r 
c o u r s e o f 
b u s i n e s s , 
r a t h e r t h a n f o r 
purposes o f l i t i g a t i o n . ' " 
They go 
on t o a s s e r t : 
" I n t h i s case, M o b i l e Gas r e t a i n e d McFadden on March 
9, 2012; 
two weeks b e f o r e M o b i l e Gas had met w i t h 
P l a i n t i f f s ' 
c o u n s e l and a l m o s t a month b e f o r e 
s u i t 
was 
f i l e d . 
"Because M o b i l e Gas r e t a i n e d McFadden 
b e f o r e 
b e i n g a p p r i s e d o f t h i s 
l a w s u i t , i t 
c o u l d n o t have 
r e t a i n e d 
McFadden 
i n 
r e a s o n a b l e 
a n t i c i p a t i o n 
t h e r e o f . 
M o b i l e Gas h i r e d McFadden t o p e r f o r m 
20 
1120229 
n e c e s s a r y t e s t s , j u s t as a damaged p e r s o n might h i r e 
a d o c t o r o r 
c o n t r a c t o r . 
"To be p r o t e c t e d t h e m a t e r i a l 'must have been 
produced because o f t h a t p r o s p e c t o f l i t i g a t i o n and  
f o r no o t h e r purpose.' 
Harper v. Auto-Owners 
I n c . 
 
Co., 138 F.R.D. 655, 
660 (N.D. 
I n d . 
1991) (emphasis 
added); 
D i v e r s i f i e d Indus., I n c . 
v. M e r e d i t h , 572 
F.2d 596, 604 (9th C i r . 1977). I n o t h e r words, 'the 
p r i m a r y m o t i v a t i n g purpose b e h i n d t h e c r e a t i o n o f 
a 
document o r i n v e s t i g a t i o n r e p o r t must be t o a i d 
i n 
p o s s i b l e f u t u r e l i t i g a t i o n . ' 
Sims v. K n o l l w o o d Park  
Hosp. 
, 511 So. 2d 154, 158 ( A l a . 1987) ( c i t i n g B i n k s  
Manuf. Co. v. N a t ' l P r e s t o Indus., 
I n c . , 709 
F.2d 
1109, 1119 (7th C i r . 1 9 8 3 ) ) . 
"When t h e m a t e r i a l i n q u e s t i o n i s 
p r o d u c e d i n 
t h e 
o r d i n a r y and r e g u l a r 
c o u r s e 
o f a 
p a r t y ' s 
b u s i n e s s , t h e m a t e r i a l i s o u t s i d e t h e scope o f 
t h e 
work-product 
d o c t r i n e and t h e r e f o r e 
s u b j e c t t o 
d i s c o v e r y . See, 8 C. W r i g h t & A. M i l l e r , 
F e d e r a l  
P r a c t i c e and P r o c e d u r e , § 2024 a t 198-99 
(1970). 
M a t e r i a l c r e a t e d as p a r t o f a 'more o r l e s s r o u t i n e 
i n v e s t i g a t i o n ' c o n d u c t e d 
' i n t h e o r d i n a r y c o u r s e o f 
b u s i n e s s ' a r e 
n o t 
c o n s i d e r e d w o r k - p r o d u c t . 
J a n i c k e r 
 
v. George Wash. U n i v . , 94 F.R.D. 648, 650 (D.D.C. 
1982) . 
"The 
s i m p l e f a c t o f t h e 
m a t t e r i n t h i s case i s 
t h a t M o b i l e Gas r e t a i n e d McFadden t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e 
mercaptan 
s i t u a t i o n 
g e n e r a l l y and as r e q u i r e d by 
ADEM. 
M o b i l e 
Gas d i d n o t 
h i r e 
McFadden f o r 
l i t i g a t i o n p u r p o s e s , 
j u s t as an i n j u r e d p e r s o n does 
not h i r e a d o c t o r f o r ' l i t i g a t i o n p u r p o s e s , ' and 
i t 
i s 
l u d i c r o u s t o a s s e r t o t h e r w i s e a f t e r t h e d o c t o r 
has s e t 
about t o p r o v i d e n e c e s s a r y m e d i c a l c a r e . 
"The ADEM i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s 
a r o u t i n e r e g u l a t o r y 
p r o c e e d i n g . 
M o b i l e Gas v i e w e d i t 
as such as 
i t 
p r o v i d e d a w e a l t h o f documents from McFadden p r i o r 
t o t h e i s s u a n c e o f a subpoena d i r e c t l y t o McFadden. 
Armbrecht J a c k s o n , M o b i l e Gas's t r i a l l a w y e r s , 
d i d 
21 
1120229 
not h i r e McFadden. 
McFadden was a l r e a d y on t h e j o b , 
w o r k i n g 
on 
t h e ADEM 
i n v e s t i g a t i o n , 
when t h e 
Armbrecht 
f i r m was h i r e d . 
M o b i l e Gas had h i r e d 
McFadden t o 
p e r f o r m a s i m i l a r e n v i r o n m e n t a l work f o r 
a number o f y e a r s . ... 
M o b i l e Gas p r o d u c e d t h e 
McFadden documents i t 
had 
because i t 
knew such work 
was n o t 
p r o t e c t e d from d i s c o v e r y . " 
(Respondents' 
b r i e f , a t 
pp. 21-22.) 
In 
t h i s case, M o b i l e Gas r e t a i n e d McFadden on March 9, 
2012, 
t o a s s i s t 
w i t h t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n 
o r d e r e d by ADEM. 
F e d e r a l c o u r t s have r e c o g n i z e d t h a t t h e 
workproduct 
p r i v i l e g e 
under R u l e 26, Fed. 
R. C i v . P., would a p p l y t o documents 
"even i f t h e y 
were 
p r e p a r e d i n a n t i c i p a t i o n o f 
l i t i g a t i o n 
i n v o l v i n g 
o n l y government a g e n c i e s and 
were n o t p r e p a r e d i n a n t i c i p a t i o n o f 
l i t i g a t i o n 
i n v o l v i n g p r i v a t e p a r t i e s ... because a p a r t y i n one 
a c t i o n may a s s e r t work p r o d u c t 
p r o t e c t i o n as t o 
documents 
p r e p a r e d 
i n 
a n t i c i p a t i o n 
o f 
a n o t h e r 
a c t i o n , 
p a r t i c u l a r l y 
where t h e two a c t i o n s a r e 
r e l a t e d . 
See F.T.C. v. G r o l i e r I n c . , 462 U.S. 19, 
25, 103 S. C t . 2209, 76 L. Ed. 2d 387 
(1983); 
M a e r t i n [ v. Armstrong 
World 
I n d u s t r i e s , I n c . , 172 
F.R.D. 143,] 150 n. 3 [(D.N.J. 
1 9 9 7 ) ] ; 
A r k w r i g h t  
M u t u a l I n s . Co. v. N a t i o n a l Union 
F i r e I n s . Co. 
o f 
 
P i t t s b u r g h , Pa., [(No. 90 C i v . 
7811, 
Sep. 
16, 1994)] 
(S.D.N.Y. 1994) [ ( n o t r e p o r t e d i n 
F. S u p p . ) ] . " 
A t l a n t i c R i c h f i e l d Co. v. C u r r e n t C o n t r o l s , I n c . , note 3 
(No. 
93-CV-0950E(H), Aug. 21, 1997) (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (not r e p o r t e d 
i n F. Supp.).
3 
3"We note t h a t f e d e r a l d e c i s i o n s c o n s t r u i n g t h e F e d e r a l 
R u l e s 
o f 
C i v i l 
Procedure 
a r e p e r s u a s i v e 
a u t h o r i t y i n 
c o n s t r u i n g t h e 
Alabama R u l e s o f C i v i l Procedure because 
t h e 
22 
1120229 
In M a r t i n v. M o n t f o r t , 150 F.R.D. 172 (D. C o l o . 
1993), 
the U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e D i s t r i c t o f C o l o r a d o 
s t a t e d : 
"Rule 26(b)(3) 
o f t h e F e d e r a l R u l e s o f 
C i v i l 
P r o c e d u r e c o n t e m p l a t e s a s e q u e n t i a l s t e p approach t o 
r e s o l v i n g work p r o d u c t 
i s s u e s . 
F i r s t , t h e p a r t y 
s e e k i n g 
d i s c o v e r y 
must 
show 
t h a t 
t h e 
s u b j e c t 
documents o r t a n g i b l e t h i n g s a r e r e l e v a n t t o 
t h e 
s u b j e c t m a t t e r i n v o l v e d i n t h e p e n d i n g 
l i t i g a t i o n 
and a r e 
n o t p r i v i l e g e d . 
Fed. 
R. C i v . P. 2 6 ( b ) ( 1 ) . 
Once such a showing has been made, t h e 
burden 
s h i f t s 
t o t h e p a r t y 
s e e k i n g 
p r o t e c t i o n t o show t h a t t h e 
r e q u e s t e d m a t e r i a l s were p r e p a r e d i n 
a n t i c i p a t i o n o f 
l i t i g a t i o n o r f o r 
t r i a l by o r f o r 
t h e p a r t y o r 
t h e 
p a r t y ' s 
a t t o r n e y , 
c o n s u l t a n t , 
s u r e t y , 
i n d e m n i t o r , 
i n s u r e r o r agent. Fed. 
R. C i v . P. 2 6 ( b ) ( 3 ) . 
Such a  
showing 
may 
be made 
by 
a f f i d a v i t , 
d e p o s i t i o n 
t e s t i m o n y , answers t o i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s , and 
t h e l i k e . 
I f t h e C o u r t c o n c l u d e s 
t h a t t h e items were 
p r e p a r e d 
i n 
a n t i c i p a t i o n o f l i t i g a t i o n , t h e burden 
s h i f t s 
back 
t o t h e r e q u e s t i n g 
p a r t y 
t o show: 
(a) a 
s u b s t a n t i a l 
need 
f o r t h e 
m a t e r i a l s 
i n t h e 
p r e p a r a t i o n 
o f t h e p a r t y ' s 
case; 
and (b) t h e 
i n a b i l i t y w i t h o u t undue h a r d s h i p o f o b t a i n i n g t h e 
s u b s t a n t i a l 
e q u i v a l e n t o f t h e m a t e r i a l s by 
o t h e r 
means. 
Fed. 
R. C i v . P. 2 6 ( b ) ( 3 ) . 
F i n a l l y , even 
i f 
s u b s t a n t i a l 
need 
and 
u n a v a i l a b i l i t y 
a r e 
demonstrated, t h e C o u r t must 
d i s t i n g u i s h 
between 
f a c t u a l 
work 
p r o d u c t , 
and m e n t a l 
i m p r e s s i o n s , 
o p i n i o n s , 
and c o n c l u s i o n s , 
f o r t h e 
l a t t e r a r e 
r a r e l y , i f 
e v e r , 
s u b j e c t t o d i s c o v e r y . 
See Toledo  
E d i s o n 
Co. v. G A 
T e c h n o l o g i e s , 
847 F.2d 335, 
339-340 (6th C i r . 1988); I n 
r e A i r C r a s h D i s a s t e r a t 
 
D e t r o i t M e t r o p o l i t a n A i r p o r t , 130 F.R.D. 641, 643 
(E.D. M i c h . 1989). 
Alabama R u l e s were p a t t e r n e d a f t e r t h e 
F e d e r a l R u l e s . 
B o r d e r s 
 
v. C i t y o f H u n t s v i l l e , 875 So. 2d 1168 ( A l a . 2003) 
." Ex p a r t e  
Novus U t i l s . , I n c . , 85 So. 3d 988, 996 ( A l a . 2011) . 
23 
1120229 
"For purposes of the p e n d i n g m o t i o n , the C o u r t 
w i l l assume t h a t the time and m o t i o n s t u d i e s have 
s u f f i c i e n t 
r e l e v a n c e 
t o 
meet 
the 
g e n e r a l 
d i s c o v e r a b i l i t y r e q u i r e m e n t s of Fed. 
R. C i v . P. 
26. 
No c o n t e n t i o n has been advanced by M o n f o r t t h a t 
the 
s t u d i e s 
f a l l w i t h i n the a t t o r n e y - c l i e n t p r i v i l e g e . 
C o n s e q u e n t l y , the C o u r t 
w i l l b e g i n i t s i n q u i r y 
by 
a d d r e s s i n g 
the 
q u e s t i o n 
of whether 
the 
time 
and 
m o t i o n 
s t u d i e s 
were p r e p a r e d 
i n 
a n t i c i p a t i o n 
of 
l i t i g a t i o n , and, 
t h e r e f o r e , p r o t e c t e d a t t o r n e y work 
p r o d u c t . 
"There i s no r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t 
l i t i g a t i o n have 
a c t u a l l y commenced i n o r d e r t o a s s e r t work p r o d u c t . 
On 
the 
o t h e r 
hand, 
the 
f a c t t h a t 
l i t i g a t i o n 
has 
commenced does 
not 
a u t o m a t i c a l l y 
b r i n g 
the 
work 
p r o d u c t 
d o c t r i n e 
i n t o p l a y . 
8 W r i g h t 
& 
M i l l e r , 
F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e & Procedure § 2024, a t pp. 197-98. 
'[T]he 
t e s t 
s h o u l d 
be 
whether, 
i n 
l i g h t 
of 
the 
 
n a t u r e of the document and the f a c t u a l s i t u a t i o n i n  
the p a r t i c u l a r case, the document can 
f a i r l y be s a i d  
t o have been p r e p a r e d or 
o b t a i n e d 
because of 
the 
 
p r o s p e c t of l i t i g a t i o n . ' I d . a t 198. 
See a l s o Ownby  
v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 293 F. Supp. 989 
(W.D. 
O k l a . 
1968) 
(emphasis [on ' p r o s p e c t ' ] added). 
"The 
a f f i d a v i t of P. Kay N o r t o n , V i c e 
P r e s i d e n t 
and 
G e n e r a l C o u n s e l f o r M o n f o r t , r e v e a l s 
t h a t 
the 
time 
and 
m o t i o n 
s t u d i e s 
were 
p e r f o r m e d 
a t 
her 
d i r e c t i o n 
a f t e r 
she 
had 
been 
c o n t a c t e d 
by 
the 
Department 
of 
Labor 
r e g a r d i n g 
i s s u e s 
s u r r o u n d i n g 
c e r t a i n 
a c t i v i t i e s 
of M o n f o r t employees p e r f o r m e d 
b e f o r e 
and 
a f t e r 
t h e i r 
normal 
work 
day. 
The 
a f f i d a v i t 
s t a t e s 
t h a t 
' [ i ] n l i g h t 
of 
my 
c o n t a c t s 
w i t h 
Mr. 
Van 
Hook 
[the 
Department 
of 
Labor 
Compliance 
O f f i c e r ] , 
I 
b e l i e v e d 
t h a t 
l i t i g a t i o n 
might r e s u l t over the i s s u e s ... and i n a n t i c i p a t i o n 
of 
such 
l i t i g a t i o n , 
I d i r e c t e d 
s p e c i f i c a l l y 
t h a t 
c e r t a i n m a n a g e r i a l employees of M o n f o r t , I n c . g a t h e r 
i n f o r m a t i o n 
r e g a r d i n g 
the 
time 
spent 
by 
the 
Company's 
employees 
on 
t h e s e 
p r e l i m i n a r y 
and 
p o s t l i m i n a r y a c t i v i t i e s . ' 
N o r t o n A f f . a t 
1-2. 
24 
1120229 
" I n v e s t i g a t i o n by 
a f e d e r a l agency p r e s e n t s more 
than a remote p r o s p e c t o f f u t u r e 
l i t i g a t i o n , and 
p r o v i d e s 
r e a s o n a b l e 
grounds 
f o r a n t i c i p a t i n g 
l i t i g a t i o n s u f f i c i e n t t o t r i g g e r a p p l i c a t i o n o f 
t h e 
work p r o d u c t d o c t r i n e . 
See, 
e.g., Kent 
C o r p o r a t i o n 
 
v. N a t i o n a l Labor R e l a t i o n s Board, 530 F.2d 612, 
623 
(5th C i r . ) , 
c e r t . d e n i e d , 429 U.S. 920, 97 S. C t . 
316, 50 L. Ed. 2d 287 (1976); I n r e LTV S e c u r i t i e s  
L i t i g a t i o n , 89 F.R.D. 595, 612 (N.D. Tex. 1981). 
A d d i t i o n a l l y , 
s t u d i e s o r t e s t s c o n d u c t e d 
a f t e r a 
p a r t y i s aware o f p o t e n t i a l l i t i g a t i o n have been 
h e l d t o be w i t h i n t h e scope o f t h e work 
p r o d u c t 
immunity 
d o c t r i n e . 
I n r e A i r C r a s h 
D i s a s t e r a t  
D e t r o i t 
M e t r o p o l i t a n 
A i r p o r t , 130 F.R.D. a t 644; 
I n t e r s t a t e P r o d u c t i o n C r e d i t Ass'n v. Fireman's Fund  
I n s . 
Co., 
128 
F.R.D. 
273 
(D. 
Or. 
1989) . 
A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e 
e v i d e n t i a r y r e c o r d and 
t h e 
case law 
amply 
s u p p o r t M o n f o r t ' s 
c l a i m 
t h a t t h e time and 
motion s t u d i e s c o n s t i t u t e work p r o d u c t . " 
150 F.R.D. a t 172-73 (some emphasis added). 
C f . T r a v e l e r s 
C a s u a l t y & S u r e t y Co. v. Alabama Gas Corp., [Ms. 
1110346, Dec. 
28, 2012] 
So. 3d 
, 
( A l a . 2012) ( c o n c l u d i n g , i n 
response t o a c e r t i f i e d 
q u e s t i o n 
from a f e d e r a l 
d i s t r i c t 
c o u r t , 
t h a t , under Alabama law, a " p o t e n t i a l l y 
r e s p o n s i b l e 
p a r t y " 
l e t t e r 
from 
t h e E n v i r o n m e n t a l 
P r o t e c t i o n 
Agency 
p u r s u a n t t o 
Comprehensive E n v i r o n m e n t a l Response Compensation 
and 
L i a b i l i t y A c t p r o v i s i o n s was s u f f i c i e n t t o s a t i s f y t h e 
" s u i t " 
r e q u i r e m e n t 
under 
comprehensive 
g e n e r a l - l i a b i l i t y 
i n s u r a n c e 
p o l i c i e s ) . 
In h i s a f f i d a v i t , Downing s t a t e d : 
25 
1120229 
"6. M o b i l e Gas r e t a i n e d McFadden E n g i n e e r i n g , 
I n c . ('McFadden') by t e l e p h o n e 
c a l l on March 9, 
2012 
t o a s s i s t w i t h t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n and M o b i l e Gas's 
response t o ADEM. 
McFadden has p r e p a r e d p l a n s 
f o r 
the work f o r s u b m i s s i o n t o 
ADEM (e.g., t h e 
March 30, 
2012 
Scope o f Work), p e r f o r m e d 
c e r t a i n a s p e c t s o f 
the 
i n v e s t i g a t i o n , 
i n c l u d i n g 
c o l l e c t i n g 
d a t a , 
i n t e r f a c e d w i t h ADEM, and 
p r e p a r e d r e p o r t s t h a t were 
s u b m i t t e d t o ADEM on b e h a l f o f M o b i l e Gas. 
S i n c e 
March 9, 2012 
McFadden has c o n s u l t e d w i t h M o b i l e Gas 
w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n and M o b i l e Gas's 
response 
t o ADEM. 
S i n c e McFadden was r e t a i n e d ,  
McFadden a l s o has s e r v e d as a c o n s u l t a n t t o M o b i l e  
Gas w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e defense o f t h i s a c t i o n and  
the f o u r r e l a t e d a c t i o n s and 
t h e 
p r e p a r a t i o n o f t h i s  
a c t i o n and t h e f o u r r e l a t e d a c t i o n s f o r 
t r i a l . 
"7. 
M o b i l e 
Gas 
has 
produced 
McFadden's 
communications 
w i t h 
ADEM, 
McFadden's 
r e p o r t s 
s u b m i t t e d t o 
ADEM, and 
t h e 
u n d e r l y i n g d a t a s u b m i t t e d 
t o ADEM. 
M o b i l e Gas has n o t p r o d u c e d 
documents 
c r e a t e d by McFadden i n a i d i n g 
M o b i l e Gas as a 
l i t i g a t i o n c o n s u l t a n t . 
"8. When M o b i l e Gas r e t a i n e d McFadden on March  
9, 2012, ADEM had c o n t a c t e d 
M o b i l e Gas and had 
 
demanded 
t h a t 
M o b i l e 
Gas conduct 
a 
groundwater  
i n v e s t i g a t i o n . As o f 
March 9, 2012, 
l i t i g a t i o n w i t h 
c e r t a i n odor c o m p l a i n a n t s was h i g h l y p r o b a b l e , which  
c o n f i r m e d when I was c o n t a c t e d by Mr. C o u r t n e y  
March 12, 2012. 
F u r t h e r , i t 
i s 
n o t i n M o b i l e  
Gas's o r d i n a r y c o u r s e o f b u s i n e s s t o u n d e r t a k e t h e  
type o f i n v e s t i g a t i o n r e q u i r e d by ADEM o r have an  
e n v i r o n m e n t a l 
c o n s u l t a n t 
produce 
t h e t y p e s 
o f  
documents c r e a t e d by McFadden." 
(Emphasis added.) 
A d d i t i o n a l l y , i n 
h i s a f f i d a v i t , Waldrop s t a t e d : 
"4. M o b i l e Gas f i r s t engaged Armbrecht J a c k s o n , 
LLP t o r e p r e s e n t i t 
i n 
t h i s a c t i o n on o r about A p r i l 
was 
on 
26 
1120229 
6, 2012. 
S i n c e Armbrecht J a c k s o n was engaged by 
M o b i l e Gas t o r e p r e s e n t i t 
i n t h i s 
a c t i o n , I have 
communicated 
w i t h 
McFadden 
E n g i n e e r i n g , I n c . 
('McFadden') 
r e g a r d i n g t h e Alabama Department o f 
E n v i r o n m e n t a l Management ('ADEM') i n v e s t i g a t i o n and 
the a b o v e - s t y l e d a c t i o n . 
A f t e r b e i n g r e t a i n e d on 
o r 
about A p r i l 6, 2012, 
I s u b s e q u e n t l y became i n charge 
of 
t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n 
r e q u i r e d by ADEM and t h e 
i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n 
c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e 
defense o f t h i s 
case and 
t h e r e l a t e d c a s e s . 
"5. The McFadden documents sought by 
P l a i n t i f f s  
i n c l u d e documents and communications g e n e r a t e d by  
McFadden on b e h a l f o f M o b i l e Gas i n response t o  
ADEM's demands and i n 
defense o f t h e l i t i g a t i o n . 
"6. 
M o b i l e 
Gas 
has 
produced 
McFadden's 
communications 
w i t h 
ADEM, 
McFadden's 
r e p o r t s 
s u b m i t t e d t o 
ADEM, and 
t h e 
u n d e r l y i n g d a t a s u b m i t t e d 
t o ADEM. 
A l t e r n a t i v e l y , M o b i l e Gas 
has 
n o t produced 
documents 
c r e a t e d by McFadden i n i t s r o l e as a 
l i t i g a t i o n c o n s u l t a n t t o M o b i l e Gas." 
(Emphasis added.) 
F i n a l l y , i n 
h i s a f f i d a v i t , Newton s t a t e d : 
"3. On March 9, 2012, 
M o b i l e Gas ... c o n t a c t e d 
me by t e l e p h o n e t o r e q u e s t McFadden's a s s i s t a n c e 
i n 
a s u b s u r f a c e 
i n v e s t i g a t i o n 
r e q u e s t e d by [ADEM] t o 
c o n f i r m o r deny t h e p r e s e n c e o f Mercaptan i n 
t h e 
s u b s u r f a c e s o i l o r groundwater i n 
t h e v i c i n i t y o f 
a 
r e l e a s e o f Mercaptan i n 
June 2008 on p r o p e r t y owned 
by G u l f South P i p e l i n e Company, L.P. 
"4. S i n c e March 9, 2012, 
McFadden has a c t e d as  
a 
c o n s u l t a n t t o M o b i l e Gas w i t h 
r e s p e c t t o t h e 
 
i n v e s t i g a t i o n and M o b i l e Gas's response t o ADEM's  
demands 
and 
a l s o 
has 
p r o v i d e d 
s e r v i c e s as a  
l i t i g a t i o n 
c o n s u l t a n t w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h i s 
a c t i o n 
 
(and t h e f o u r r e l a t e d a c t i o n s ) (the ' l i t i g a t i o n ' ) . 
27 
1120229 
"5. 
McFadden's 
documents 
i n c l u d e 
documents 
p r e p a r e d by McFadden on b e h a l f o f M o b i l e Gas b o t h 
w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n and M o b i l e Gas's 
r e s p o n s e t o ADEM and w i t h 
r e s p e c t t o M o b i l e Gas's 
defense o f t h e l i t i g a t i o n . " 
Based on t h e s e 
a f f i d a v i t s , 
M o b i l e Gas has e s t a b l i s h e d 
t h a t t h e documents as t o which i t 
was c l a i m i n g a p r i v i l e g e 
were p r e p a r e d o r o b t a i n e d i n a n t i c i p a t i o n o f l i t i g a t i o n . 
The 
p l a i n t i f f s 
contend 
t h a t , 
even i f t h e r e q u e s t e d 
documents d i d 
c o n s t i t u t e w o r k p r o d u c t , M o b i l e Gas w a i v e d any 
c l a i m o f w o r k p r o d u c t 
p r i v i l e g e because i t 
had p r e v i o u s l y 
p r o d u c e d voluminous documents p r e p a r e d by McFadden r e l a t e d 
t o 
the ADEM i n v e s t i g a t i o n . "The p r i v i l e g e d e r i v e d from t h e work-
p r o d u c t 
d o c t r i n e i s n o t a b s o l u t e . 
L i k e 
o t h e r 
q u a l i f i e d 
p r i v i l e g e s , i t 
may be w a i v e d . " 
U n i t e d S t a t e s v. N o b l e s , 422 
U.S. 225, 
239 (1975) . 
"Work p r o d u c t p r o t e c t i o n may be waived, and t h e 
p a r t y i n v o k i n g t h e 
p r i v i l e g e must prove t h a t i t has 
not w a i v e d t h e p r o t e c t i o n . 
Eden I s l e M a r i n a , 
I n c . 
 
v. 
U n i t e d 
S t a t e s , 
89 Fed. C l . 480, 503 (2009) 
( c i t i n g E v e r g r e e n T r a d i n g , LLC v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 80 
Fed. C l . 
122, 127 (2007)). 
Waiver o c c u r s when a 
p a r t y 
d i s c l o s e s m a t e r i a l 
' " i n 
a way i n c o n s i s t e n t 
w i t h k e e p i n g i t 
from t h e 
a d v e r s a r y , " ' 
E v e r g r e e n , 80 
Fed. 
C l . 
a t 133 ( q u o t i n g 
U n i t e d 
S t a t e s v. Mass.  
I n s t . o f Tech., 129 F.3d 681, 
687 ( 1 s t C i r . 1 9 9 7 ) ) , 
such as u s i n g m a t e r i a l as a b a s i s f o r 
an a f f i r m a t i v e 
d e f e n s e , i d . 
a t 130." 
28 
1120229 
Salem F i n . , I n c . v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 102 
Fed. 
C l . 793, 
796 
(2012). 
In 
t h e i r 
response 
t o 
M o b i l e 
Gas's 
o b j e c t i o n t o 
the 
n o n p a r t y subpoena, the p l a i n t i f f s a s s e r t e d : 
"4. 
On 
June 
1, 
2012, 
M o b i l e 
Gas 
produced 
thousands 
of 
pages 
of 
documents 
g e n e r a t e d 
by 
McFadden. 
Most of t h o s e documents were p r e v i o u s l y 
p r o v i d e d by McFadden t o the Alabama Department of 
E n v i r o n m e n t a l 
Management, 
EPA, 
and 
o t h e r w i s e 
p u b l i c l y 
d i s t r i b u t e d . 
J u s t l a s t week, M o b i l e 
Gas 
p r o d u c e d 
McFadden's 
l a t e s t 
' P r e l i m i n a r y 
I n v e s t i g a t i v e R e p o r t ' d a t e d J u l y 27, 2012, 
e x c e r p t s 
of which are a t t a c h e d h e r e t o as E x h i b i t B. 
In t h a t 
r e p o r t , 
McFadden 
c o n c l u d e d 
t h a t mercaptan 
b e i n g 
e m i t t e d 
i n t o 
the 
atmosphere 
from 
the 
' s p r i n g s ' 
a d j a c e n t t o the W h i s t l e r J u n c t i o n f a c i l i t y f l o w e d 
down-gradient 
from 
the 2008 M o b i l e 
Gas 
mercaptan 
s p i l l 
s i t e . 
T h i s 
c o n c l u s i o n 
was 
based 
on 
c o r r e s p o n d i n g mercaptan r e a d i n g s found a t the 2008 
s p i l l 
s i t e , 
down-gradient from the 
s p i l l 
s i t e , 
i n 
the 
' s p r i n g s ' which 
emit 
the mercaptan 
i n t o 
the 
atmosphere, and i n the 'pond' j u s t downstream 
from 
the 
s p r i n g s . 
D e s p i t e 
t h i s 
overwhelming 
e v i d e n c e 
from 
i t s 
own 
' t r i a l 
c o n s u l t a n t , ' 
M o b i l e 
Gas 
c o n t i n u e s t o 'deny' t h a t i t i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the 
mercaptan n u i s a n c e which 
s t i l l e x i s t s (DAILY) i n the 
E i g h t M i l e community. 
"5. Examples of McFadden documentation 
( a t t a c h e d 
as E x h i b i t C) p r e v i o u s l y produced by M o b i l e Gas 
on 
June 1, 2012 i n c l u d e : 
"(a) 
I n t e r n a l 
e m a i l s 
and 
documents 
between 
M o b i l e 
Gas 
and 
McFadden 
r e l a t i n g 
d i r e c t l y 
t o 
McFadden's i n v e s t i g a t i o n work 
"(b) 
McFadden's 
b i l l i n g 
r e c o r d s 
f o r 
i t s 
i n v e s t i g a t i o n ... ; 
29 
1120229 
"(c) 
D r a f t s o f t h e Scope o f Work 
McFadden 
p r o v i d e d t o M o b i l e Gas and 
ADEM ... 
; 
"(d) 
F i n a l 
Scope o f Work Agreement between 
McFadden and M o b i l e Gas ... 
; 
"(e) 
Documents 
r e l a t i n g 
t o McFadden's a i r 
m o n i t o r i n g and i n v e s t i g a t i o n ... 
; 
" ( f ) S a f e t y meeting a t t e n d a n c e s h e e t s p r o v i d i n g 
names and employers f o r 
a l l 
i n 
a t t e n d a n c e ... 
; 
"(g) I n t e r n a l M o b i l e Gas notes on i t s meetings 
w i t h 
McFadden 
r e g a r d i n g 
McFadden's 
E i g h t 
M i l e 
p o l l u t i o n i n v e s t i g a t i o n ... 
; 
"(h) MORE -- t h e f o r e g o i n g a r e j u s t examples 
o f 
McFadden documents produced by M o b i l e Gas -- t h e r e 
are 
l i t e r a l l y 
thousands o f such documents i n 
t h e 
M o b i l e Gas p r o d u c t i o n . 
M o b i l e Gas defense 
c o u n s e l 
i s n o t a r e c i p i e n t on any o f t h e s c o r e s o f e m a i l s 
between McFadden, M o b i l e Gas, 
and 
ADEM. 
"6. 
Most a l l 
o f t h e s e 
documents were made 
' p u b l i c ' v i a 
p u b l i c a t i o n t o ADEM, e t c . 
C l e a r l y , 
M o b i l e 
Gas d i d n o t view 
McFadden 
as a 
' t r i a l 
e x p e r t , ' o t h e r w i s e i t 
w o u l d n o t have produced 
such 
voluminous 
documentation 
r e g a r d i n g McFadden's work. 
To t h e e x t e n t McFadden i s 
a ' t r i a l e x p e r t , ' M o b i l e 
Gas has 'waived' 
any p r i v i l e g e o r work 
p r o d u c t 
r e s t r i c t i o n on McFadden's r e c o r d s . " 
In h i s a f f i d a v i t , Downing acknowledged t h a t M o b i l e Gas 
had produced McFadden's communications 
w i t h ADEM, McFadden's 
r e p o r t s t h a t had been s u b m i t t e d t o ADEM, and t h e u n d e r l y i n g 
d a t a t h a t had 
been s u b m i t t e d t o 
ADEM. However, he a l s o s t a t e d 
t h a t 
" M o b i l e Gas has n o t produced 
documents 
c r e a t e d by 
30 
1120229 
McFadden i n a i d i n g M o b i l e Gas as a l i t i g a t i o n c o n s u l t a n t . " 
F u r t h e r , i n 
h i s a f f i d a v i t , Waldrop s t a t e d t h a t M o b i l e Gas 
had 
p r o d u c e d 
"McFadden's 
communications 
w i t h ADEM, McFadden's 
r e p o r t s s u b m i t t e d t o ADEM, and t h e u n d e r l y i n g d a t a 
s u b m i t t e d t o ADEM. 
A l t e r n a t i v e l y , M o b i l e Gas has 
 
not produced documents c r e a t e d by McFadden i n 
i t s 
 
r o l e as a l i t i g a t i o n c o n s u l t a n t t o M o b i l e Gas." 
(Emphasis 
added.) 
A d d i t i o n a l l y , 
i n t h e p r i v i l e g e l o g 
s u b m i t t e d , 
M o b i l e Gas s t a t e d 
t h a t 
t h e r e were 
c o p i e s o f 
correspondence and e - m a i l s i n 
McFadden's f i l e t h a t r e f l e c t e d 
communications t o and from employees o f 
ADEM and 
t o and from 
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f G u l f South and an e n t i t y named 
Boardwalk 
LLP and t h a t M o b i l e Gas d i d n o t contend t h a t those items were 
p r o t e c t e d from d i s c o v e r y . F i n a l l y , as 
t h e 
p l a i n t i f f s n o t e d 
i n 
t h e i r 
response 
t o M o b i l e 
Gas's 
o b j e c t i o n , 
most o f t h e 
documents M o b i l e Gas 
had 
p r o d u c e d had 
a l r e a d y been made p u b l i c 
by p u b l i c a t i o n t o 
ADEM. 
Based on t h e f o r e g o i n g , i t does n o t 
appear t h a t M o b i l e Gas has t r e a t e d t h e 
documents f o r which i t 
c l a i m s a p r i v i l e g e i n 
a manner i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h k e e p i n g them 
from an a d v e r s a r y . See Salem F i n . , I n c . , 102 Fed. C l . a t 796. 
Because M o b i l e Gas s a t i s f i e d i t s 
burden o f d e m o n s t r a t i n g 
t h a t t h e r e q u e s t e d documents 
c o n s t i t u t e d w o r k p r o d u c t , t h e 
31 
1120229 
burden s h i f t e d t o 
t h e 
p l a i n t i f f s t o demonstrate a s u b s t a n t i a l 
need f o r t h e 
u n d i s c l o s e d documents and 
t o show t h a t t h e y were 
"unable 
w i t h o u t 
undue 
h a r d s h i p 
t o o b t a i n t h e s u b s t a n t i a l 
e q u i v a l e n t o f 
t h e 
m a t e r i a l s by o t h e r means." I n t h i s 
r e g a r d , 
the 
p l a i n t i f f s m e r e l y a s s e r t e d i n t h e i r response t o M o b i l e 
Gas's o b j e c t i o n : 
" ' E x c e p t i o n a l 
c i r c u m s t a n c e s ' 
can a r i s e when an 
e x p e r t has unique a c c e s s t o f a c t u a l 
i n f o r m a t i o n , 
such as where t h e e x p e r t 
p e r f o r m e d 
t e s t s 
under 
c i r c u m s t a n c e s where t h e 
o p p o s i n g p a r t i e s do n o t 
have 
a c c e s s t o such i n f o r m a t i o n . 
P l a i n t i f f s 
o b v i o u s l y 
cannot o b t a i n t h e d a t a o b t a i n e d by McFadden -- s o i l 
t e s t s , a i r t e s t s , groundwater t e s t s , e t c . on M o b i l e 
G a s / G u l f South p r o p e r t i e s s i n c e p r e - s u i t 
d a t e s . " 
However, i n 
h i s 
a f f i d a v i t , Waldrop s p e c i f i c a l l y s t a t e d 
t h a t 
M o b i l e Gas 
had 
p r o d u c e d "McFadden's communications w i t h ADEM, 
McFadden's r e p o r t s s u b m i t t e d t o 
ADEM, and 
t h e 
u n d e r l y i n g 
d a t a 
s u b m t i t t e d t o 
ADEM." (Emphasis added.) A d d i t i o n a l l y , 
i n t h e i r 
a t t a c h m e n t s t o t h e i r b r i e f , t h e 
p l a i n t i f f s have p r o v i d e d 
t h i s 
C o u r t w i t h c o p i e s o f l a b o r a t o r y r e p o r t s t h a t i n c l u d e r e s u l t s 
on t e s t i n g from v a r i o u s samples. 
Thus, t h e p l a i n t i f f s have 
not 
s a t i s f i e d 
t h e i r burden o f e s t a b l i s h i n g t h a t t h e y have 
s u b s t a n t i a l need o f t h e documents as t o w h i c h M o b i l e Gas 
i s 
c l a i m i n g a p r i v i l e g e . 
I I . 
32 
1120229 
M o b i l e 
Gas 
a l s o 
argues 
t h a t 
the 
p l a i n t i f f s 
have 
not 
c o m p l i e d w i t h the p r o c e d u r e s s e t f o r t h i n R u l e 26(b) ( 5 ) ( B ) , 
A l a . 
R. C i v . P., 
f o r o b t a i n i n g d i s c o v e r y from a n o n t e s t i f y i n g 
e x p e r t . 
S p e c i f i c a l l y , M o b i l e 
Gas 
contends t h a t , because i t 
r e t a i n e d McFadden i n a n t i c i p a t i o n 
of l i t i g a t i o n and because i t 
has 
not 
d e s i g n a t e d 
McFadden 
as 
an 
e x p e r t 
a t 
t r i a l , 
the 
p l a i n t i f f s may o b t a i n d i s c o v e r y from McFadden o n l y p u r s u a n t t o 
R u l e 26(b) ( 5 ) ( B ) , A l a . R. C i v . P.; t h a t R u l e 26(b) ( 5 ) ( B ) , A l a . 
R. C i v . P., 
r e q u i r e s a showing of e x c e p t i o n a l 
c i r c u m s t a n c e s ; 
and t h a t the p l a i n t i f f s have not made a showing of e x c e p t i o n a l 
c i r c u m s t a n c e s . 
R u l e 2 6 ( b ) ( 5 ) ( B ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., 
p r o v i d e s , 
i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : 
"(5) 
T r i a l P r e p a r a t i o n : E x p e r t s . 
D i s c o v e r y 
of 
f a c t s known and o p i n i o n s h e l d by e x p e r t s , 
o t h e r w i s e 
d i s c o v e r a b l e 
under 
the 
p r o v i s i o n s 
of 
s u b d i v i s i o n 
(b)(1) 
of 
t h i s 
r u l e and 
a c q u i r e d 
or d e v e l o p e d i n 
a n t i c i p a t i o n 
of 
l i t i g a t i o n 
or 
f o r 
t r i a l , 
may 
be 
o b t a i n e d o n l y as f o l l o w s : 
"  
"(B) A p a r t y may 
d i s c o v e r f a c t s known 
or o p i n i o n s h e l d by an e x p e r t who 
has been 
r e t a i n e d , s p e c i a l l y employed or a s s i g n e d 
by 
a n o t h e r p a r t y i n a n t i c i p a t i o n 
of 
l i t i g a t i o n 
or p r e p a r a t i o n 
f o r 
t r i a l 
and 
who 
i s 
not 
e x p e c t e d 
t o 
be 
c a l l e d 
as 
a 
w i t n e s s 
a t 
33 
1120229 
t r i a l , o n l y as p r o v i d e d i n R u l e 35(b) [
4] or 
upon a showing of e x c e p t i o n a l 
c i r c u m s t a n c e s 
under w h i c h 
i t i s i m p r a c t i c a b l e 
f o r 
the 
p a r t y s e e k i n g d i s c o v e r y t o o b t a i n f a c t s or 
o p i n i o n s 
on 
the 
same 
s u b j e c t 
by 
o t h e r 
means." 
McFadden has 
not been d e s i g n a t e d 
as 
an 
e x p e r t 
w i t n e s s 
a t 
t r i a l . 
F u r t h e r , as we 
d i s c u s s e d i n P a r t I of t h i s 
o p i n i o n , 
M o b i l e 
Gas 
s a t i s f i e d i t s burden of e s t a b l i s h i n g t h a t i t had 
r e t a i n e d McFadden 
i n 
a n t i c i p a t i o n 
of 
l i t i g a t i o n . 
Thus, 
p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 2 6 ( b ) ( 5 ) ( B ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., 
the 
p l a i n t i f f s 
w i l l be a l l o w e d t o d i s c o v e r f a c t s or o p i n i o n s from McFadden 
o n l y "upon a showing of e x c e p t i o n a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s under w h i c h 
i t i s i m p r a c t i c a b l e f o r the p a r t y s e e k i n g d i s c o v e r y t o o b t a i n 
f a c t s or o p i n i o n s on the same s u b j e c t by o t h e r means." 
"Under 
R u l e 
2 6 ( b ) ( 4 ) ( B ) , 
the 
p a r t y 
s e e k i n g 
d i s c o v e r y from the n o n - t e s t i f y i n g e x p e r t 
c o n s u l t e d 
i n 
a n t i c i p a t i o n 
of 
l i t i g a t i o n 
' c a r r i e s 
a 
heavy 
burden i n d e m o n s t r a t i n g 
the e x i s t e n c e of e x c e p t i o n a l 
c i r c u m s t a n c e s . ' 
Ager 
[v. Jane C. Stormont Hosp. &  
T r a i n i n g 
Sch. 
f o r 
N u r s e s ] , 
622 
F.2d 
[496,] 
503 
[ ( 1 0 t h C i r . 1980)] 
( i n t e r n a l 
q u o t a t i o n s 
o m i t t e d ) . 
E x c e p t i o n a l 
c i r c u m s t a n c e s 
are shown i f the 
p a r t y 
s e e k i n g 
d i s c o v e r y 
i s u n a b l e 
t o 
o b t a i n 
e q u i v a l e n t 
i n f o r m a t i o n from o t h e r s o u r c e s . E l i a s e n v. 
H a m i l t o n , 
111 
F.R.D. 
396, 
400 
(N.D. 
I l l . 1986) 
( i n t e r n a l 
q u o t a t i o n o m i t t e d ) . 
The p a r t y s e e k i n g d i s c o v e r y 
may 
4 R u l e 
3 5 ( b ) , 
A l a . R. 
C i v . 
P., 
p r o v i d e s 
f o r 
o b t a i n i n g 
d i s c o v e r y of a r e p o r t from a p h y s i c a l or m e n t a l e x a m i n a t i o n 
of 
a p e r s o n t h a t i s c o n d u c t e d p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 3 5 ( a ) , A l a . 
R. 
C i v . 
P.; 
t h u s , i t does not a p p l y t o t h i s 
case. 
34 
1120229 
meet t h i s e x c e p t i o n a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s 
s t a n d a r d i n 
one 
of two ways. 
F i r s t , t h e 
moving p a r t y may show t h a t 
the o b j e c t o r c o n d i t i o n a t i s s u e i s 
d e s t r o y e d o r 
has 
d e t e r i o r a t e d 
a f t e r 
t h e 
n o n - t e s t i f y i n g 
e x p e r t 
o b s e r v e s i t 
b u t 
b e f o r e t h e 
moving p a r t y ' s e x p e r t has 
an o p p o r t u n i t y t o observe i t . See D i s i d o r e v. M a i l  
C o n t r a c t o r s o f Am., I n c . , 196 F.R.D. 410, 417 (D. 
Kan. 
20 00); H a r t f o r d F i r e I n s . [v. 
Pure A i r on 
t h e 
 
Lake L t d . P ' s h i p ] , 154 F.R.D. [202,] 207 [(N.D. 
I n d . 
1 9 9 3 ) ] . 
Second, t h e 
moving p a r t y may show t h e r e a r e 
no 
o t h e r 
a v a i l a b l e e x p e r t s i n t h e same 
f i e l d o r 
s u b j e c t a r e a . 
See B a i l e y v. M e i s t e r Brau, I n c . , 57 
F.R.D. 11, 14 
(N.D. I l l . 
1972) 
( p a r t y 
s e e k i n g 
d i s c o v e r y must prove t h a t o p i n i o n s by o t h e r s on 
t h e 
s u b j e c t a r e u n a v a i l a b l e ) . " 
Spearman Indus., I n c . v. S t . 
P a u l F i r e & M a r i n e I n s . Co., 
128 
F. Supp. 2d 1148, 1151-52 (N.D. I l l . 2001). 
In t h i s case, t h e p l a i n t i f f s have n o t 
made any showing o f 
such e x c e p t i o n a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s . 
F u r t h e r , as we n o t e d i n P a r t 
I o f t h i s o p i n i o n , t h e p l a i n t i f f s have n o t e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t 
t h e y have s u b s t a n t i a l need o f 
t h e 
documents as t o 
which M o b i l e 
Gas i s c l a i m i n g a p r i v i l e g e . 
Because t h e p l a i n t i f f s d i d n o t 
s a t i s f y t h e i r burden under R u l e 2 6 ( b ) ( 5 ) ( B ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., 
t h e y were n o t e n t i t l e d t o o b t a i n d i s c o v e r y o f any f a c t s known 
t o o r o p i n i o n s h e l d by McFadden. 
See Ex p a r t e C r y e r , 814 
So. 
2d 239 ( A l a . 2001). 
C o n c l u s i o n 
35 
1120229 
Based on t h e f o r e g o i n g , M o b i l e Gas has e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t 
the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t exceeded i t s 
d i s c r e t i o n when i t d i s r e g a r d e d 
the w o r k p r o d u c t 
p r i v i l e g e and e n t e r e d an o r d e r 
c o m p e l l i n g 
M o b i l e Gas t o 
produce t h e 
documents i n c l u d e d i n 
t h e p r i v i l e g e 
l o g and when i t d e n i e d M o b i l e Gas's m o t i o n f o r 
a p r o t e c t i v e 
o r d e r . 
Thus, M o b i l e Gas has e s t a b l i s h e d a c l e a r l e g a l 
r i g h t 
t o 
a 
p r o t e c t i v e 
o r d e r 
r e g a r d i n g 
t h e p r o d u c t i o n 
o f t h e 
documents 
l i s t e d on t h e p r i v i l e g e l o g 
i t 
s u b m i t t e d t o 
t h e 
t r i a l c o u r t . 
A c c o r d i n g l y , we g r a n t M o b i l e Gas's p e t i t i o n 
f o r 
the w r i t o f mandamus and d i r e c t t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o s e t a s i d e 
i t s 
October 12, 2012, o r d e r 
c o m p e l l i n g t h e p r o d u c t i o n o f 
documents i n c l u d e d i n t h e p r i v i l e g e l o g 
and t o o r d e r 
t h o s e 
documents p r o t e c t e d from d i s c o v e r y . 
PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED. 
S t u a r t , B o l i n , Murdock, Main, and Bryan, J J . , concur. 
P a r k e r , J . , 
concurs i n 
t h e r e s u l t . 
Moore, C . J . , d i s s e n t s . 
36 
1120229 
MOORE, C h i e f J u s t i c e 
( d i s s e n t i n g ) . 
I r e s p e c t f u l l y d i s s e n t from t h e 
m a j o r i t y o p i n i o n because, 
f o r t h e r e a s o n s e x p r e s s e d i n my s p e c i a l w r i t i n g i n Ex p a r t e  
Ocwen F e d e r a l Bank, FSB, 872 So. 2d 810, 817 ( A l a . 
2003) 
(Moore, C.J., c o n c u r r i n g i n t h e r e s u l t ) , I do n o t b e l i e v e 
mandamus 
r e l i e f 
i s p r o p e r 
i n t h e c o n t e x t 
o f 
d i s c o v e r y 
p r o c e e d i n g s . 
As I i n d i c a t e d i n 
Ocwen, t h e r e was a t i m e , n o t 
a l l 
t h a t 
l o n g 
ago, 
when 
t h i s 
C o u r t 
announced 
t h a t 
" ' [ o ] r d i n a r i l y , 
[ i t ] would n o t r e v i e w 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
r u l i n g s 
r e g a r d i n g d i s c o v e r y . ' " 872 So. 2d a t 817 ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e  
Dorsey T r a i l e r s , I n c . , 
397 So. 2d 98, 102 ( A l a . 1 9 8 1 ) ) . 
I n 
Dorsey T r a i l e r s , a l t h o u g h t h e C o u r t i s s u e d t h e w r i t , i t n o t e d 
t h a t "mandamus 
w i l l i s s u e t o compel d i s c o v e r y o n l y i n those 
cases where a c l e a r abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n i s 
shown." 397 So. 2d 
a t 
103 
(emphasis 
added). 
I t does n o t appear 
t h a t t h e 
p e t i t i o n e r s i n t h i s case have met t h a t 
s t a n d a r d . 
As I wrote i n 
Ocwen: " T h i s C o u r t i t s e l f s h o u l d be a b l e t o 
r e s t r i c t t h e abuse o f u s i n g p e t i t i o n s f o r 
a w r i t o f mandamus 
i n d i s c o v e r y m a t t e r s by r e s t r i c t i n g t h e use o f e x t r a o r d i n a r y 
w r i t s t o e x t r a o r d i n a r y i n s t a n c e s and by r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t an 
37 
1120229 
a p p e a l i s i n almost a l l 
cases an adequate remedy." 872 So. 2d 
a t 818. 
I s t a n d by t h a t 
a s s e r t i o n . 
38