Title: Ewing v. USA Water Ski, Inc.

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

REL: 06/21/2013 
Notice: 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) 229¬
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 
1120744 
Ex parte USA Water S k i , Inc. 
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS 
(In re: 
Joy 
King Ewing f/k/a 
Joy 
King, as personal 
representative of 
the 
estate of Stewart Arthur Bieber, 
and 
Rachel K. Bieber 
v. 
Colonel Biggs Water Ski 
Show Team e t a l . ) 
(Montgomery C i r c u i t Court, CV-12-900283) 
STUART, J u s t i c e . 
1120744 
USA Water S k i , I n c . ,
1 p e t i t i o n s t h i s C o u r t f o r 
a w r i t o f 
mandamus d i r e c t i n g t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t t o v a c a t e i t s d i s c o v e r y 
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 a r e p o r t t h a t i t 
says i s 
p r i v i l e g e d under t h e w o r k - p r o d u c t d o c t r i n e . 
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 s 
C o l o n e l B i g g s Water S k i 
Show Team ( " C o l o n e l 
B i g g s " ) i s 
a member o f USA Water S k i , t h e n a t i o n a l g o v e r n i n g body f o r 
o r g a n i z e d 
c o m p e t i t i v e 
water 
s k i i n g i n t h e U n i t e d 
S t a t e s . 
S t e w a r t A r t h u r B i e b e r was a s k i e r f o r C o l o n e l B i g g s . On A p r i l 
17, 2010, w h i l e 
s k i i n g backwards and b a r e f o o t a t a C o l o n e l 
B i g g s 
p r a c t i c e a t Gateway P a r k Lake i n Montgomery, 
B i e b e r 
c o l l i d e d w i t h a s t a t i o n a r y dock and s u f f e r e d i n j u r i e s 
t h a t 
caused h i s d e a t h . 
On F e b r u a r y 29, 2012, Joy K i n g Ewing f / k / a Joy K i n g , as 
p e r s o n a l 
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f B i e b e r ' s 
e s t a t e , and R a c h e l K. 
B i e b e r 
( h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o c o l l e c t i v e l y as " E w i n g " ) , 
f i l e d a w r o n g f u l - d e a t h 
a c t i o n a g a i n s t C o l o n e l B i g g s , USA Water 
S k i , and t h e f o l l o w i n g i n d i v i d u a l members o f C o l o n e l 
B i g g s : 
1The name o f t h i s 
e n t i t y a l s o a p p e a r s i n t h e m a t e r i a l s 
b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t as "U.S.A. Water S k i , I n c . " 
2 
1120744 
M i c h a e l R o b i n s o n , t h e d r i v e r o f t h e b o a t B i e b e r was 
s k i i n g 
b e h i n d a t t h e time o f t h e a c c i d e n t , and J o e l L a n g e r , t h e 
s a f e t y 
o b s e r v e r 
i n t h e b o a t . 
The 
c o m p l a i n t 
a l l e g e d 
n e g l i g e n c e and wantonness i n o p e r a t i n g t h e b o a t , 
f a i l u r e t o 
p r o v i d e adequate p r o t e c t i o n t o B i e b e r , and f a i l u r e t o n o t i f y 
the M a r i n e P o l i c e o f t h e s k i p r a c t i c e , as r e q u i r e d by 
law. 
D u r i n g d i s c o v e r y , USA Water S k i 
p r o d u c e d t o Ewing a 24-
page p r i v i l e g e l o g , t h e l a s t i t e m on w h i c h i s 
d e s c r i b e d as 
" c o r r e s p o n d e n c e 
from Mark Neuberger t o J.R. W i l s o n 
r e g a r d i n g S t e w a r t B i e b e r ' s i n c i d e n t . 
J e r r y L e i t i n g 
was 
c a r b o n - c o p i e d on t h e communication. 
Neuberger, 
W i l s o n , and L e i t i n g a r e a l l members o f USA Water 
S k i . 
Mr. W i l s o n asked Mr. Neuberger t o p r e p a r e t h e 
correspondence 
due, i n p a r t , t o h i s 
( M r . W i l s o n ' s ) 
b e l i e f 
t h a t t h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t 
l i k e l i h o o d a 
l a w s u i t would be f i l e d 
f o l l o w i n g S t e w a r t ' s 
d e a t h . 
Thus, we have w i t h h e l d t h i s c o r r e s p o n d e n c e . 
P l e a s e 
see a f f i d a v i t from Mr. W i l s o n ( a t t a c h e d ) . " 
In t h e a f f i d a v i t W i l s o n 
a v e r r e d : 
"1. My name i s 
John Robert 
(J.R.) W i l s o n . 
I am 
over t h e 
age o f n i n e t e e n y e a r s , and I have p e r s o n a l 
knowledge o f t h e f a c t s a s s e r t e d h e r e i n . 
"2. 
I am a U.S.A. Water S k i L i f e Member and 
was 
i n A p r i l 2010. 
"3. 
I n A p r i l 2010, I was Chairman o f U.S.A. 
Water 
S k i , I n c . ' s 
N a t i o n a l S k i Show A s s o c i a t i o n 
(NSSA) D r i v e r s ' Committee. 
"4. 
By Monday, 
A p r i l 19, 2010, I had been 
i n f o r m e d o f t h e A p r i l 17, 2010, i n c i d e n t i n v o l v i n g 
3 
1120744 
S t e w a r t B i e b e r . 
My u n d e r s t a n d i n g as o f A p r i l 1 9 t h 
was S t e w a r t B i e b e r s t r u c k a dock w h i l e water 
s k i i n g 
backwards. 
My u n d e r s t a n d i n g was he was p r a c t i c i n g 
h i s show r u n a t t h e time o f t h e i n c i d e n t . 
"5. 
I asked Mark Neuberger t o p r e p a r e a r e p o r t 
c o n c e r n i n g 
S t e w a r t 
B i e b e r ' s 
i n c i d e n t . 
Mr. 
Neuberger's 
r e p o r t , 
d a t e d 
A p r i l 
19, 2010, was 
f o r w a r d e d t o me. 
J e r r y L e i t i n g was c o p i e d on t h e 
r e p o r t . 
"6. 
I n A p r i l 
2010, Mr. Neuberger was 
C h i e f 
D r i v e r Examiner f o r U.S.A. Water S k i ' s N a t i o n a l Show 
S k i 
A s s o c i a t i o n ' s S o u t h e r n R e g i o n . 
I n A p r i l 2010, 
Mr. 
L e i t i n g was P r e s i d e n t o f U.S.A. Water 
S k i ' s 
N a t i o n a l Show S k i A s s o c i a t i o n . 
"7. 
I n l i g h t o f t h e s e r i o u s 
n a t u r e 
o f t h e 
i n c i d e n t as r e p o r t e d t o me, I e x p e c t e d Mr. B i e b e r ' s 
f a m i l y t o 
f i l e 
a l a w s u i t even though I d i d 
n o t 
b e l i e v e U.S.A. Water S k i , 
t h e N a t i o n a l Show S k i 
A s s o c i a t i o n o r C o l o n e l B i g g ' s [ s i c ] Water S k i 
Show 
Team had done a n y t h i n g 
i m p r o p e r . 
F u r t h e r m o r e , my 
former w i f e i s 
an a t t o r n e y . 
Based on my f a m i l i a r i t y 
w i t h t h e l e g a l system 
(through 
c o n v e r s a t i o n s 
w i t h 
her over t h e y e a r s ) , I b e l i e v e d i t was l i k e l y 
t h a t 
Mr. 
B i e b e r ' s f a m i l y would f i l e a l a w s u i t . 
"8. 
I asked Mr. Neuberger t o p r e p a r e t h e r e p o r t 
i n an e f f o r t t o a s s i s t i n 
t h e defense o f an e x p e c t e d 
l a w s u i t . 
N e i t h e r I nor anyone a t U.S.A. Water S k i 
r o u t i n e l y p e r f o r m i n v e s t i g a t i o n s , p r e p a r e i n c i d e n t 
r e p o r t s nor i n t e r v i e w w i t n e s s e s i n 
t h e 
normal c o u r s e 
of 
b u s i n e s s . 
"9. 
I r e q u e s t e d t h e r e p o r t w i t h t h e e x p e c t a t i o n 
t h a t i t would be c o n f i d e n t i a l and s h a r e d 
o n l y w i t h 
a t t o r n e y s 
i n t h e c o u r t o f d e f e n d i n g 
an e x p e c t e d 
l a w s u i t . 
I n f a c t , t h e r e p o r t i t s e l f i n d i c a t e s t h a t 
i t 
s h o u l d 
be 
kept 
c o n f i d e n t i a l 
between 
Mr. 
Neuberger, Mr. W i l s o n and Mr. L e i t i n g , a l l 
o f w h i c h 
are U.S.A. Water S k i 
members." 
4 
1120744 
Ewing moved t o compel p r o d u c t i o n o f Neuberger's 
p o s t -
i n c i d e n t 
r e p o r t , 
r e f e r r e d t o i n t h e 
p r i v i l e g e 
l o g as 
" c o r r e s p o n d e n c e . " 
I n h e r m o t i o n , Ewing argued t h a t USA Water 
S k i 
f a i l e d t o c a r r y i t s 
burden o f e s t a b l i s h i n g t h a t t h e r e p o r t 
met t h e 
elements o f t h e 
w o r k - p r o d u c t p r i v i l e g e . 
USA Water 
S k i 
responded, 
m a i n t a i n i n g 
t h a t 
W i l s o n ' s 
a f f i d a v i t 
p r o v i d e d 
s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t h a t Neuberger's p o s t - i n c i d e n t r e p o r t was 
c r e a t 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 and, c o n s e q u e n t l y , 
t h a t 
i t was p r i v i l e g e d under t h e w o r k - p r o d u c t d o c t r i n e . 
A f t e r 
c o n d u c t i n g a h e a r i n g and r e v i e w i n g t h e b r i e f s 
f i l e d by t h e 
p a r t i e s , t h e t r i a l c o u r t g r a n t e d Ewing's motion and o r d e r e d 
p r o d u c t i o n o f t h e r e p o r t . USA Water S k i 
p e t i t i o n s t h i s 
C o u r t 
f o r a w r i t o f 
mandamus d i r e c t i n g t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o v a c a t e i t s 
o r d e r . 
S t a n d a r d o f Review 
"'Mandamus i s 
an e x t r a o r d i n a r y remedy 
and w i l l be g r a n t e d o n l y when t h e r e i s "(1) 
a c l e a r 
l e g a l 
r i g h t i n t h e p e t i t i o n e r t o 
the o r d e r sought, (2) an i m p e r a t i v e 
d u t y 
upon t h e 
r e s p o n d e n t t o 
p e r f o r m , accompanied 
by a r e f u s a l t o do so, (3) t h e l a c k o f 
a n o t h e r adequate remedy, and (4) p r o p e r l y 
i n v o k e d 
j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e c o u r t . " 
Ex 
p a r t e 
A l f a b , I n c . , 
586 So. 2d 889, 891 
( A l a . 
1991) . 
I n Ex p a r t e Ocwen 
F e d e r a l  
Bank, FSB, 872 So. 2d 810 ( A l a . 2003), t h i s 
C o u r t 
announced t h a t i t would no 
l o n g e r 
5 
1120744 
r e v i e w 
d i s c o v e r y 
o r d e r s 
p u r s u a n t 
t o 
e x t r a o r d i n a r y 
w r i t s . 
However, 
we d i d 
i d e n t i f y 
f o u r 
c i r c u m s t a n c e s 
i n w h i c h a 
d i s c o v e r y 
o r d e r 
may 
be 
r e v i e w e d 
by a 
p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus. 
Such 
c i r c u m s t a n c e s 
a r i s e (a) 
when a p r i v i l e g e i s 
d i s r e g a r d e d , see Ex p a r t e M i l t o p e 
Corp., 
823 So. 2d 640, 644-45 
( A l a . 2001); (b) 
when 
a 
d i s c o v e r y 
o r d e r 
compels 
t h e 
p r o d u c t i o n 
o f 
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 t h e p r o d u c t i o n o f 
w h i c h 
c l e a r l y 
c o n s t i t u t e s harassment o r 
imposes a burden on t h e 
p r o d u c i n g p a r t y 
f a r 
out o f p r o p o r t i o n t o any b e n e f i t r e c e i v e d 
by 
t h e r e q u e s t i n g 
p a r t y , 
5 r e q u e s t i n g 
p a r t y , see, e.g., Ex  
p a r t e Compass Bank, 686 So. 2d 1135, 1138 
( A l a . 
1996); 
(c) when t h e 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
e i t h e r 
imposes 
s a n c t i o n s 
e f f e c t i v e l y 
p r e c l u d i n g a d e c i s i o n on t h e m e r i t s o r 
d e n i e s d i s c o v e r y g o i n g t o 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 so t h a t , i n 
e i t h e r event, 
the outcome o f t h e case has been a l l 
b u t 
d e t e r m i n e d and t h e p e t i t i o n e r 
would be 
m e r e l y g o i n g t h r o u g h t h e 
motions o f a t r i a l 
to o b t a i n an a p p e a l ; o r (d) when t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t i m p e r m i s s i b l y p r e v e n t s t h e p e t i t i o n e r 
from making a r e c o r d on t h e d i s c o v e r y i s s u e 
so t h a t an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t cannot 
r e v i e w 
the 
e f f e c t o f t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t ' s 
a l l e g e d 
e r r o r . 
The burden r e s t s on t h e p e t i t i o n e r 
to demonstrate t h a t i t s p e t i t i o n 
p r e s e n t s 
such an e x c e p t i o n a l case -- t h a t i s , 
one 
i n 
w h i c h an a p p e a l i s 
n o t an adequate remedy. 
See Ex p a r t e C o n s o l i d a t e d P u b l ' g Co., 601 
So. 2d 423, 426 ( A l a . 1992).' 
"Ex 
p a r t e 
D i l l a r d Dep't S t o r e s , I n c . , 
879 So. 2d 
1134, 
1136-37 ( A l a . 2003)." 
Ex p a r t e Zoghby, 958 So. 2d 314, 319-20 ( A l a . 2006). 
6 
1120744 
" 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 the 
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 the 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 . " 
Ex p a r t e Ocwen Fed. Bank, FSB, 
872 
So. 2d 810, 813 ( A l a . 2003). 
D i s c u s s i o n 
USA 
Water S k i contends 
t h a t 
the 
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 i n o r d e r i n g p r o d u c t i o n of Neuberger's 
p o s t - i n c i d e n t 
r e p o r t 
because, 
i t 
s a y s , 
the 
r e p o r t 
i s 
p r i v i l e g e d under 
the w o r k - p r o d u c t 
d o c t r i n e . USA 
Water S k i 
m a i n t a i n s , and Ewing does not deny, t h a t the element a t i s s u e 
i n t h i s case i s whether the p o s t - i n c i d e n t r e p o r t 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 . " 
"'"Under R u l e 2 6 ( b ) ( 3 ) , 
[ A l a . R. C i v . P.,] 
the 
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 the burden 
o f 
e s t a b l i s h i n g 
the 
elements 
o f 
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 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 a r e 
' 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 o r 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 or 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 
o r 
a 
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of 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. 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). 
7 
1120744 
"Once '"the p a r t i e s a r e '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 
o f l i t i g a t i o n , ' " ' t h e 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 added)) 
"[When t h e d e t e r m i n a t i v e 
i s s u e i s whether t h e 
d i s c o v e r y 
t o 
be 
p r o d u c e d 
was 
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 ] '[a] 
" b l a n k e t c l a i m " as 
t o t h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f t h e work p r o d u c t d o c t r i n e 
does n o t s a t i s f y t h e [ o b j e c t i n g p a r t i e s ' ] burden o f 
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 o f 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 o r 
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 
t h e 
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, o r r e p o r t s t o s u p p o r t t h e [ 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 ] , ' 
t h e 
c o u r t 
can 
o n l y 
' s p e c u l a t e ' as t o whether t h e 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 . o f E q u i f a x  
S e r v s . , I n c . , 120 F.R.D. 504, 
510 (W.D. L a . 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 t h e 
i t e m s o r c a t e g o r i e s o b j e c t e d t o and t h e 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 , t h e proponent must 
p r o v i d e t h e 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 t h e 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 t h e c l a i m o f p r i v i l e g e . ' ) . " 
Ex p a r t e Meadowbrook I n s . Group, 
I n c . , 987 So. 2d 540, 548 
( A l a . 
2007). 
USA Water S k i 
contends t h a t i t 
s a t i s f i e d i t s burden o f 
e s t a b l i s h i n g 
t h a t 
Neuberger's 
p o s t - i n c i d e n t 
r e p o r t 
was 
8 
1120744 
p r i v i l e g e d under the w o r k - p r o d u c t d o c t r i n e because, i t s a y s , 
the 
e v i d e n c e 
e s t a b l i s h e d 
t h a t 
the 
r e p o r t 
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 . 
In 
s u p p o r t 
of 
i t s c l a i m 
of 
p r i v i l e g e , USA Water S k i s u b m i t t e d 
an a f f i d a v i t from 
W i l s o n , 
the chairman of USA Water S k i ' s D r i v e r s Committee, who 
asked 
Neuberger t o p r e p a r e the 
r e p o r t . 
In the 
a f f i d a v i t , 
W i l s o n 
s t a t e d t h a t because he was 
f a m i l i a r w i t h the l e g a l system 
and 
i n l i g h t of the s e r i o u s n a t u r e 
of the a c c i d e n t t h a t 
o c c u r r e d 
w h i l e a s k i e r was 
p r a c t i c i n g f o r a USA Water S k i 
a f f i l i a t e d 
show, 
he 
b e l i e v e d 
t h a t 
the 
s k i e r ' s 
f a m i l y would 
f i l e 
a 
l a w s u i t . 
He 
e x p l a i n e d 
t h a t he 
asked Neuberger, the 
c h i e f 
d r i v e r examiner, t o p r e p a r e a r e p o r t about the a c c i d e n t 
f o r 
the 
purpose 
of 
a s s i s t i n g 
i n 
the 
d e f e n s e 
of 
a 
p o t e n t i a l 
l a w s u i t . 
He f u r t h e r e x p l a i n e d t h a t an a c c i d e n t r e p o r t i s not 
r o u t i n e l y p r e p a r e d by 
USA 
Water S k i p e r s o n n e l 
f o l l o w i n g 
an 
a c c i d e n t . 
USA 
Water S k i m a i n t a i n s 
t h a t W i l s o n ' s 
a f f i d a v i t 
e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t the r e p o r t 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 and e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t the r e p o r t i s p r o t e c t e d by the 
w o r k - p r o d u c t p r i v i l e g e . 
"'Under R u l e 2 6 ( b ) ( 3 ) , 
[ A l a . R. 
C i v . P.,] 
the 
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 
the burden 
of 
e s t a b l i s h i n g 
the 
elements 
of 
the 
w o r k - p r o d u c t i o n 
e x c e p t i o n . ' 
Ex p a r t e G a r r i c k , 642 
So. 2d 951 
( A l a . 
9 
1120744 
1994). 
The 
mere 
f a c t 
t h a t 
l i t i g a t i o n 
does 
e v e n t u a l l y 
ensue 
does 
not, 
by 
i t s e l f , 
c l o a k 
m a t e r i a l s 
w i t h 
the 
p r o t e c t i o n 
of 
the 
w o r k - p r o d u c t 
p r i v i l e g e . 
Sims v. K n o l l w o o d Park Hosp., 511 So. 
2d 
154 
( A l a . 1987). 
'"[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 
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 . " ' 
Sims, 
511 
So. 
2d a t 157 
( q u o t i n g 
B i n k s 
Mfg. 
Co. 
v. 
N a t i o n a l 
 
P r e s t o 
I n d u s t r i e s , I n c . , 
709 
F.2d 
1109, 
1119 
(7th 
C i r . 
1 9 8 3 ) ) . 
The 
word 
(and 
concept) because 
i s 
c r i t i c a l . " 
Ex p a r t e 
S t a t e Farm Mut. 
Auto. I n s . Co., 
761 
So. 
2d 
1000, 
1002 
( A l a . 2000). 
Here, USA Water S k i a d e q u a t e l y e x p l a i n e d t h a t Neuberger's 
p o s t - i n c i d e n t 
r e p o r t 
was 
p r e p a r e d 
because 
of 
p r o s p e c t i v e 
l i t i g a t i o n . 
W i l s o n 
e x p l a i n e d 
t h a t 
he 
asked Neuberger 
t o 
p r e p a r e the r e p o r t , w h i c h was 
not 
an 
o r d i n a r i l y p r e p a r e d 
by 
USA Water S k i p e r s o n n e l f o l l o w i n g an a c c i d e n t , i n a n t i c i p a t i o n 
of 
a s s i s t i n g i n 
the 
defense 
o f 
a 
l a w s u i t . 
None 
of 
the 
e v i d e n c e b e f o r e 
us 
i n d i c a t e s t h a t Neuberger's 
p o s t - i n c i d e n t 
r e p o r t was p r e p a r e d f o r any r e a s o n o t h e r t h a n i n 
p r e p a r a t i o n 
f o r e v e n t u a l 
l i t i g a t i o n . 
T h e r e f o r e , 
USA Water S k i e s t a b l i s h e d 
a c a u s a l r e l a t i o n s h i p between the a n t i c i p a t i o n of 
l i t i g a t i o n 
and the p r o d u c t i o n 
or use of the 
r e p o r t . 
10 
1120744 
Ewing m a i n t a i n s 
t h a t Neuberger's p o s t - i n c i d e n t r e p o r t i s 
not 
p r o t e c t e d by t h e w o r k - p r o d u c t 
p r i v i l e g e . 
F i r s t , 
she 
argues t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e does not e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e r e p o r t 
was 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 because W i l s o n ' s 
a f f i d a v i t 
does not s p e c i f i c a l l y 
s t a t e t h a t t h e r e p o r t 
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 t o be b r o u g h t 
a g a i n s t 
USA Water S k i . I n s u p p o r t of her argument, Ewing c i t e s Ex  
p a r t e 
S t a t e 
Farm, 
s u p r a . 
In 
t h a t 
case, 
the 
p l a i n t i f f 
r e q u e s t e d the p r o d u c t i o n of documents from S t a t e Farm's c l a i m s 
f i l e 
t h a t had been p r e p a r e d b e f o r e 
t h e l a w s u i t was 
f i l e d . 
S t a t e Farm o b j e c t e d , 
a r g u i n g 
t h a t t h e f i l e was work 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 
of 
l i t i g a t i o n 
and 
t h e r e f o r e 
p r i v i l e g e d . 
S t a t e Farm s u b m i t t e d an a f f i d a v i t 
s t a t i n g t h a t i t 
"'was under t h e i m p r e s s i o n 
and took t h e p o s i t i o n 
t h a t [the 
p l a i n t i f f ] had p l a n n e d t o be i n v o l v e d i n l i t i g a t i o n 
r e g a r d i n g 
t h i s 
a c c i d e n t . ' " 
761 So. 2d a t 1003. 
T h i s C o u r t h e l d 
t h a t 
the 
a f f i d a v i t 
m e r e l y 
p r o v i d e d 
t h a t 
S t a t e 
Farm 
g e n e r a l l y 
a n t i c i p a t e d 
l i t i g a t i o n and d i d not e s t a b l i s h t h a t S t a t e Farm 
a n t i c i p a t e d 
t h a t 
l i t i g a t i o n 
would be b r o u g h t 
a g a i n s t i t . 
Because S t a t e Farm d i d not p r e s e n t 
e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g 
t h a t 
the 
documents 
sought 
were 
p r e p a r e d 
s p e c i f i c a l l y 
i n 
11 
1120744 
a n t i c i p a t i o n o f l i t i g a t i o n a g a i n s t S t a t e Farm, t h e C o u r t h e l d 
t h a t t h e documents were n o t p r o t e c t e d by t h e w o r k - p r o d u c t 
p r i v i l e g e . 
Here, 
W i l s o n ' s 
a f f i d a v i t 
a d e q u a t e l y 
e s t a b l i s h e s 
t h a t 
Neuberger's p o s t - i n c i d e n t r e p o r t 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 a g a i n s t USA Water S k i . I n h i s a f f i d a v i t , 
W i l s o n 
e x p l a i n e d h i s r o l e and Neuberger's r o l e i n 
t h e 
USA Water 
S k i 
o r g a n i z a t i o n , e x p l a i n e d 
t h a t t h e a c c i d e n t 
o c c u r r e d 
d u r i n g a 
p r a c t i c e 
f o r a USA Water S k i show, and e x p l a i n e d 
t h a t , 
a l t h o u g h he " d i d n o t b e l i e v e USA Water S k i , t h e N a t i o n a l Show 
S k i 
A s s o c i a t i o n o r C o l o n e l B i g g ' s 
[ s i c ] Water S k i 
Show Team 
had done a n y t h i n g i m p r o p e r , " he b e l i e v e d l i t i g a t i o n was l i k e l y 
and t h a t t h e r e p o r t would be h e l p f u l t o 
t h e d e f e n s e . 
A l t h o u g h 
W i l s o n does n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y 
s t a t e i n 
h i s a f f i d a v i t 
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 t o 
be i n i t i a t e d a g a i n s t USA Water S k i , 
t h a t i s a f a i r 
i n f e r e n c e 
from a r e a d i n g o f h i s 
a f f i d a v i t . 
T h e r e f o r e , 
USA 
Water 
S k i a d e q u a t e l y 
e s t a b l i s h e d 
t h a t 
Neuberger's p o s t - i n c i d e n t r e p o r t was c r e a 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 a g a i n s t i t . 
Next, 
Ewing 
m a i n t a i n s 
t h a t 
Neuberger's 
p o s t - i n c i d e n t 
r e p o r t was not 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 because 
12 
1120744 
the c o r r e s p o n d e n c e c o n s t i t u t i n g t h e r e p o r t was between non-
a t t o r n e y members o f USA Water S k i , was n o t d r a f t e d a t t h e 
d i r e c t i o n o f an a t t o r n e y o r i n response t o any n o t i c e 
t h a t 
Ewing had r e t a i n e d an a t t o r n e y , and was w r i t t e n two y e a r s 
b e f o r e a l a w s u i t was f i l e d . 
The e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e r e p o r t was 
not p r e p a r e d a t t h e r e q u e s t o f an a t t o r n e y and t h a t t h e r e p o r t 
was p r e p a r e d two y e a r s b e f o r e a l a w s u i t was f i l e d a r e f a c t o r s 
t o c o n s i d e r when d e t e r m i n i n g whether t h e r e p o r t was 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 . 
However, t h e 
d e t e r m i n a t i v e 
q u e s t i o n t o be r e s o l v e d i n t h i s case i s whether Neuberger's 
p o s t - i n c i d e n t r e p o r t "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 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 . " 
Sims v.  
K n o l l w o o d Park Hosp., 511 So. 2d 154, 158 ( A l a . 1987). C f . 
Ex 
 
p a r t e Meadowbrook I n s . Group, 987 So. 2d a t 549 ("Thus, 'the 
purpose 
f o r w h i c h 
a 
p a r t y 
c r e a t e d 
a 
document 
i s t h e 
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 a d d e d ) . " ) . 
W i l s o n ' s a f f i d a v i t e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t , a t t h e time he asked 
f o r 
13 
1120744 
the r e p o r t , he r e c o g n i z e d 
t h a t the i n c i d e n t had 
r e s u l t e d i n 
the d e a t h of a s k i e r w h i l e the s k i e r was 
p r e p a r i n g 
f o r a 
USA 
Water 
S k i show 
and 
t h a t 
l i t i g a t i o n 
would ensue; 
i t a l s o 
e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t t h i s r e p o r t was 
not c r e a t e d i n the 
o r d i n a r y 
c o u r s e of b u s i n e s s . 
The 
f a c t s and c i r c u m s t a n c e s 
of t h i s case 
s u p p o r t 
a 
c o n c l u s i o n 
t h a t 
the 
r e p o r t 
was 
p r e p a r e d 
i n 
a n t i c i p a t i o n 
of 
e v e n t u a l 
l i t i g a t i o n 
and, 
c o n s e q u e n t l y , 
i s 
p r o t e c t e d by the w o r k - p r o d u c t p r i v i l e g e . 
"While the 
t r i a l c o u r t , under the Alabama R u l e s of C i v i l 
P r o c e d u r e , 
has 
b r o a d 
d i s c r e t i o n a r y 
a u t h o r i t y 
r e g a r d i n g 
d i s c o v e r y m a t t e r s , 
t h a t a u t h o r i t y i s not u n l i m i t e d . 
Ex 
p a r t e  
N i s s e i Sangyo A m e r i c a , L t d . , 577 So. 2d 912 
( A l a . 1991)." 
Ex 
 
p a r t e F u l l e r , 600 So. 2d 214, 
216 
( A l a . 1992) . 
USA Water S k i 
has shown t h a t the 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 
i n o r d e r i n g the p r o d u c t i o n of Neuberger's p o s t - i n c i d e n t r e p o r t 
because 
the 
r e p o r t 
i s 
p r i v i l e g e d under 
the 
w o r k - p r o d u c t 
d o c t r i n e .
2 
2"Even 
i f 
the 
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 , 
R u l e 
2 6 ( b ) ( 3 ) , A l a . R. 
C i v . P., 
r e c o g n i z e s 
an e x c e p t i o n when the 
p a r t y 
r e q u e s t i n g 
the 
m a t e r i a l 
can 
show 
s u b s t a n t i a l need 
c o u p l e d w i t h undue h a r d s h i p . " 
Ex p a r t e N o r f o l k Southern 
Ry., 
897 
So. 
2d 290, 
295 
( A l a . 2004) . 
Ewing, however, does 
not 
argue t h a t t h i s e x c e p t i o n a p p l i e s h e r e . 
14 
1120744 
C o n c l u s i o n 
Based on t h e f o r e g o i n g , we g r a n t USA Water S k i ' s p e t i t i o n 
and 
i s s u e a w r i t o f mandamus d i r e c t i n g t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t t o 
v a c a t e 
i t s o r d e r 
c o m p e l l i n g 
USA 
Water 
S k i t o produce 
Neuberger's p o s t - i n c i d e n t 
r e p o r t . 
PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED. 
B o l i n , P a r k e r , Murdock, Wise, and B r y a n , J J . , 
c o n c u r . 
Shaw, J . , 
c o n c u r s 
s p e c i a l l y . 
Moore, C . J . , d i s s e n t s . 
15 
1120744 
SHAW, J u s t i c e 
( c o n c u r r i n g 
s p e c i a l l y ) . 
I concur i n g r a n t i n g the p e t i t i o n and i s s u i n g the w r i t . 
I 
w r i t e 
s p e c i a l l y 
t o 
a d d r e s s 
an 
argument made 
by 
the 
r e s p o n d e n t s , Joy K i n g Ewing and R a c h e l K. B i e b e r ( h e r e i n a f t e r 
r e f e r r e d t o c o l l e c t i v e l y as "Ewing"). 
Ewing contends t h a t the d e c i s i o n s i n Ex p a r t e Cummings, 
776 So. 2d 771 ( A l a . 
2000) 
, and Ex p a r t e C r y e r , 814 So. 2d 239 
( A l a . 
2001), 
d i c t a t e 
t h a t Mark Neuberger's 
p o s t - i n c i d e n t 
r e p o r t 
cannot 
be 
c o n s i d e r e d t o 
have 
been 
" 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 . " 
B o t h o f t h o s e d e c i s i o n s note the 
s e t t l e d r u l e p a r a p h r a s e d as f o l l o w s : In d e t e r m i n i n g whether a 
document i s p r i v i l e g e d work p r o d u c t , the t e s t i s whether, i n 
l i g h t of the n a t u r e o f 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 
o f the p r o s p e c t of 
l i t i g a t i o n . 
The 
f a c t 
t h a t 
a 
d e f e n d a n t 
a n t i c i p a t e s 
the 
c o n t i n g e n c y of l i t i g a t i o n 
r e s u l t i n g from an a c c i d e n t or event 
does not a u t o m a t i c a l l y q u a l i f y an " i n house" r e p o r t as work 
p r o d u c t . 
The 
document i n q u e s t i o n i n Cummings was 
a 
w o r k e r ' s 
compensation 
case 
f i l e . 
A l t h o u g h a worker's 
compensation 
16 
1120744 
c l a i m might u l t i m a t e l y r e s u l t i n l i t i g a t i o n , the case f i l e i n 
Cummings was p r e p a r e d i n the o r d i n a r y c o u r s e o f b u s i n e s s and 
not 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 . 
776 So. 2d a t 775. 
C r y e r 
i n v o l v e d a document p r e p a r e d by a d o c t o r r e l a t i n g t o a b i r t h 
where i n j u r y t o t h e baby o c c u r r e d . 
There was 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 
p r e p a r e r o f t h e 
document knew o f impending 
l i t i g a t i o n , 
and, on t h e c o n t r a r y , t h e r e was some 
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 
document was p r e p a r e d f o r 
a n o t h e r purpose. 
814 So. 2d a t 247-48 
The 
f a c t s and e v i d e n c e s u r r o u n d i n g t h e p r e p a r a t i o n o f 
Neuberger's r e p o r t here a r e c l e a r l y d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from those 
i n the c a s e s 
c i t e d by Ewing. 
I t was n o t an " i n house" 
document t h a t was r o u t i n e l y c r e a 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 ; i n s t e a d , f o r a l l t h a t appears, Neuberger's 
r e p o r t 
was a unique 
document 
c r e a t e d f o r the s o l e 
purpose 
o f 
p r e p a r i n g a d e f e n s e i n a n t i c i p a t e d l i t i g a t i o n . 
I see t h i s as 
d i f f e r e n t 
from a document produced 
m e r e l y 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 under the c l o u d o f p o s s i b l e 
l i t i g a t i o n . 
17