Source: https://www.smithlaw.bz/dealing-with-attorney-client-privilege-and-work-product-doctrine.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 03:04:11+00:00

Document:
In our judgment, receiving Answers To Interrogatories or responses to Requests For Production in which opposing counsel objects to answering certain questions or producing documents, stating that "the information or documents being sought were obtained or prepared in anticipation of litigation and are therefore protected from discovery by the attorney work product doctrine and/or attorney-client privilege" occurs too frequently. How often do attorneys follow-up on that kind of response and press opposing counsel for a proper response to the tendered Interrogatories or Request For Production? Probably not often enough.
The purpose of this article is to provide a concise summary of Indiana law relative to the work product doctrine and attorney-client privilege and to provide a form for an Interrogatory that can be used to follow-up with regard to general objections to Interrogatories and Requests For Production based on the work product doctrine and attorney-client privilege, which can be used to require opposing counsel to respond fully and appropriately when such objections are made.
Although the "attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine arise from the same common law origin", the work product doctrine under contemporary law is "distinct from and broader than the attorney-client privilege". The items protected by the work product doctrine are not confined to attorney-client confidential communications. [Federal] Rule 26(b)(3) extends protection to all "documents and tangible things" that are prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial. Included in this amorphous category are trial preparation documents that contain the fruits of the attorney's investigative endeavors and any compendium of relevant evidence prepared by the attorney. Also protected by Rule 26(b)(3) are the attorney's mental impressions, opinions and legal theories. (Citation omitted).
The policy behind the rule of Hickman v. Taylor (1947), 329 U.S. 495, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451, and its progeny, now codified in Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(3), the federal counterpart to our own trial rule, is to protect the integrity of the adversary process, not to protect all recorded opinions, observations and impressions an attorney or his advisors have made in connection with a legal problem. Coastal Corp. v. Duncan (D.Del., 1980), 86 F.R.D. 514, 522. Documents are work product because their subject matter relates to the preparation, strategy, and appraisal of the strengths and weaknesses of an action, or to the activities of the attorneys involved. 4 Moore's Federal Practice Sec. 26.64 at 26-349 (1970).
Trial Rule 26(B)(3) of the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure provides in part that a party may obtain discovery of documents ... otherwise discoverable under subdivision (B)(1) of this rule and prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or by or for that other party's representative (including his attorney ... or agent) only upon a showing that the party seeking discovery has substantial need of the materials in the preparation of his case and that he is unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means.
f) If the answer to sub-part (e) of this Interrogatory is in the affirmative, state the name, address, telephone number, employer, and job title or position of each such third person; the date on which each such third person came into the possession of each document or other item of tangible evidence; and, the purpose for each individual coming into the possession of each such document or item of tangible evidence.
Please note that this Interrogatory does not seek information with regard to communications solely between the Defendant and his/her/its legal counsel, or does it seek the requested information with regard with regard to items prepared entirely by defense/plaintiff's counsel, such as defense/plaintiff's notes, memoranda, legal research, or the like.
INTERROGATORY NO. 1: A complete copy of the insurance or investigative claim file developed by agents of the Defendant.
A copy of the police report and photocopies of all of the photographs mentioned above are being supplied to Plaintiff's counsel. The original photographs may be reviewed and/or copied upon request.
Defense counsel objects to producing the Defendant's statement because it is privileged. Defense counsel also objects to producing the statement taken from John Brown, based upon the work product privilege.
There have been a number of tort cases of first impression handed down by our state's Court of Appeals and Supreme courts during the first quarter of 1996. The issues involved in these cases include: the existence of a privilege to enter onto another's land implied by custom; guidance for proper venue for the filing of a wrongful death case; rejection of the intervening cause defense as a "knock-out defense" under comparative fault system; rejection of a single limit cap for derivative actions against the State; recognition of cause of action by injured worker against the parent company of her employer; the rejection of worker's compensation "exclusive remedy" defense for a wrongful death action by parents of a child against the mother's employer when the child's death was caused by exposure by the mother and the child, in utero, to fumes at work; and a clear ruling regarding the effect of the sunset provision for limitation of damages for wrongful death of a child.
Engine difficulties brought Jesse L. Frye to the door of the Rumbletown Free Methodist Church and its parsonage in Frye v. Rumbletown Free Methodist Church.(34) On March 5, 1992, Mr. Frye went up to the door of the parsonage to use the telephone or to borrow a can of gasoline after his car stopped running on the highway near the parsonage. After knocking on the door and receiving no response, he turned to leave. Just as he began to descend the steps of the parsonage, the top step moved, causing him to fall between the porch and the house. He was injured.
Mr. Frye claimed that he was an invitee and brought suit for injuries against the church. The church moved for and was granted summary judgment on the basis of lack of duty owed to Mr. Frye. Mr. Frye appealed asserting that he was a public invitee or at the very least a licensee to whom was owed the duty to be informed of hidden or latent dangers of which the property owners had knowledge.
The well established usages of a civilized and Christian community entitle everyone to assume that a possessor of land is willing to permit him to enter for certain purposes until a particular possessor expresses unwillingness to admit him. Thus a traveler who is overtaken by a violent storm or who has lost his way, is entitled to assume that there is no objection to is going to a neighboring house for shelter or direction.
The Indiana Supreme Court finally cleared the smoke surrounding the issue of identifying the proper county in which to file a wrongful death case. In RJR Nabisco Holdings, Corp. v. Dunn,(35) Craig Dunn and Phillip Wiley, as personal representatives, and Philip Wiley individually, brought a product liability action for wrongful death alleging that Phillip Wiley's wife's death was caused by second-hand smoke. Mr. Wiley's wife had been a resident of Grant County. The estate was opened in Grant County. Suit was filed in Delaware County, where Mrs. Wiley received all of her treatment for cancer and where she died. None of the defendants were residents of the State of Indiana. Mr. Wiley was not a resident of the State of Indiana. This left only the estate itself. The Supreme Court indicated that the estate was not a "person", "organization" or "governmental organization" within the meaning of Trial Rule 75(A)(1)-(10); and, as a result, venue would properly lie in any county of the State.
Defenses under the Comparative Fault Act (I.C. 34-4-33-1 et seq.) continue to be refined. In L.K.I. Holdings, Inc. v. Tyner,(36) the Court of Appeals held that the defense of intervening cause was no longer susceptible to summary judgment. In Tyner, Jason Tyner was a passenger in a car being driven by Sarah Tunney.
Ms. Tunney was involved in a crash at the intersection of Fall Creek Parkway and Brokenhurst Parkway. Jason Tyner sued L.K.I. Holdings, Inc., claiming that it was negligent in failing to maintain its road. L.K.I. Holdings, Inc. moved for summary judgment, in part, on the basis that any injuries to Jason Tyner were caused by the actions of Ms. Tunney -- which constituted an intervening cause. The Court of Appeals held that "the comparison of fault inherent in the doctrine of intervening cause has been incorporated into our comparative fault system. If Tunney's negligence was a proximate cause of the accident, such does not immunize L.K.I. Holdings, Inc. from liability caused by its negligence". In other words, apportionment principles of comparative fault apply.
In State v. Eaton,(37) the Court of Appeals addressed for the first time the issue of whether a single statutory cap is applicable to a derivative claim. In Eaton, Jeffrey Eaton was severely injured when he struck the rear of a truck while driving through dust which was created by State employees who had been "clipping" the shoulder of the highway on which Mr. Eaton was driving his motorcycle. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Jeffrey Eaton in the amount of $449,280 and in favor of Jeffrey's parents in the amount of $101,178.64. The larger award was reduced to the statutory limit of $300,000, but the loss of service award was allowed to stand. The State appealed, claiming that since the right of the parent to recover was derivative in nature, separate damages are not allowed. The Court of Appeals held that notwithstanding the fact that the parent's claim is derivative, there are two separate causes of action, one for the child for personal injury and another for the parent for property damage. As a result, there is a separate right for recovery and the single statutory cap does not apply to both. This case should be contrasted with the case of Medley v. Frye,(38) in which the Court of Appeals a month later, held that Mary L. Medley's claim for loss of consortium arose out of her husband's injuries and the insurer's payment for her loss was limited to the per person limits paid out by the insurer for her husband's injuries. While there may have been a difference between the policy language of the Medley case and the statutory language of the Eaton case, the jurisprudential policy underlying both decisions must be the same. The Medley case appears to have been incorrectly decided in light of the policy set out in Eaton.
Two important cases present new ways to seek redress for injuries and death. In McQuade v. Draw Tite, Inc.,(39) the Supreme Court upheld the right of an injured employee to seek redress for injuries in tort against her employer's parent corporation. Mary Jane McQuade was injured at work. She brought a worker's compensation action against her employer, Mongo Electronics. She also brought a negligence suit against Draw Tite, Inc., the parent company of Mongo Electronics. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the company. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision. The Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case to the trial court, with orders to reinstate the corporation as the defendant in the case. In so holding, the Supreme Court noted that the "exclusivity of the Indiana's Worker's Compensation Act does not prevent an employee from suing his or her employer's parent corporation." The Court also noted that any such action must be founded on an alleged breach of duty of care separate and distinct from any vicarious liability attributable to a parent.
In Ransburg Industries v. Brown,(40) Rebecca and Brett Brown sued Rebecca's employer, Ransburg Industries, for the wrongful death of their child, Brandon, who they alleged, was exposed to noxious fumes, in utero. The Court of Appeals noted that this was the first time that Indiana had reviewed the issue of whether an action for injuries sustained by a child while in utero against a negligent employer is barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Indiana's Worker's Compensation Act. After looking to other jurisdictions, the Court concluded that the action for wrongful death was not derivative of Rebecca's claim for injuries. Rather, the action for wrongful death stands alone.
In Indiana Patient's Comp. Fund v. Anderson,(41) the Court of Appeals reviewed the damage limitation incorporated within I.C. 34-1-1-8 (which created a substantive right allowing parents to recover damages for the loss of their child's love and companionship). This limitation applied to all cases which accrued after May 7, 1987 and before October 31, 1990. By the express wording of the statute, the limitation for damages expired on November 1, 1992. The issue in the Anderson case was whether the limitation still applied to causes of action which accrued before October 31, 1990. The Court held that the expiration applied to all causes of action including those which accrued before October 31, 1990. As a result of this holding, it is now clear that there are no longer any limitations for damages in wrongful death of child cases.
1. Richey v. Chappell (1992), Ind., 594 N.E.2d 443, 445; Trial Rule 26(b)(1) of the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure; Coleman v. Heidenreich (1978), 269 Ind. 419, 423, 381 N.E.2d 866, 869.
2. I.C.34-1-14-5 and I.C. 34-1-60-4.
3. Jenkinson v. State (1845), 5 Blackf. 465, 466.
4. (8th Cir. 1977), 560 F.2d 326, 337.
5. Burr v. United Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company (1990), Ind.App., 560 N.E.2d 1250, 1256.
13-14; Bingham v. Walk (1881), 128 Ind. 164, 171, 27 N.E. 483, 486; Maas v. Bloch (1855), 7 Ind. 202.
9. Indiana State Board of Public Welfare v. Tioga Pines Living Center, Inc. (1992), Ind.App., 592 N.E.2d 1274, 1276-1277.
10. American Buildings Company v. Kokomo Grain Company, Inc. (1987), Ind.App., 506 N.E.2d 56, 62, citing In re Murphy (8th Cir.1977), 560 F.2d 334.
11. Trial Rule 26(B)(3) of the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure; Burr v. United Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company (1990), Ind.App., 560 N.E.2nd 1250.
12. Trial Rule 26(B)(3) of the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure; Burr v. United Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company (1990), Ind.App., 560 N.E.2d 1250, 1254; Cigna-INA/Aetna v. Hagerman-Shambaugh (1985), Ind.App., 473 N.E.2d 1033, 1037.
Cigna-INA/Aetna v. Hagerman-Shambaugh (1985), Ind.App., 473 N.E.2d 1033, all of which cited or quoted 8 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil Sec. 2024 at 198 (1970).
14. Indiana State Board of Public Welfare v. Tioga Pines Living Center, Inc. (1992), Ind.App., 592 N.E.2d 1274, 1277.
15. Burr v. United Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company (1990), Ind.App., 560 N.E.2d 1250, 1254.
16. Richey v. Chappell (1991), Ind.App., 572 N.E.2d 1338, 1341, citing Burr v. United Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. (1990), Ind.App., 560 N.E.2d 1250.
17. Burr v. United Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company (1990), Ind.App., 560 N.E.2d 1250, 1256, citing American Buildings Co. v. Kokomo Grain Co., Inc. (1987), Ind.App., 506 N.E.2d 56.
18. Burr v. United Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, (1990), Ind.App., 560 N.E.2d 1250, 1255.
19. Richey v. Chappell (1991), Ind.App., 572 N.E.2d 1338, 1341.
20. Burr v. United Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company (1990), Ind.App., 560 N.E.2d 1250, 1254, citing Tarolis v. General Electric Co. (N.D.Ind.), 114 F.R.D. 97, 98, aff'd, (7thCir.1988), 840 F.2d 920.
22. Burr v. United Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company (1990), Ind.App., 560 N.E.2d 1250, 1254, citing Taroli v. General Electric Co. (N.D.Ind.1987), 114 F.R.D. 97, 98, aff'd (7th Cir.1988), 840 F.2d 920.
23. Indiana State Board of Public Welfare v. Tioga Pines Living Center, Inc. (1992), Ind.App., 592 N.E.2d 1274, 1278.
24. Burr v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company (1990), Ind.App., 560 N.E.2d 1250, 1256, citing CIGNA-INA/Aetna v. Hagerman-Shambaugh (1985), Ind.App., 473 N.E.2d 1033 and American Buildings Co. v. Kokomo Grain Co., Inc. (1987), Ind.App., 506 N.E.2d 56.
25. Burr v. United Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, (1990), Ind.App. 560 N.E.2d 1250, 1256.
26. American Buildings Company v. Kokomo Grain Company, Inc. (1987), Ind.App., 506 N.E.2d 56, citing CIGNA-INA/Aetna v. Hagerman-Shambaugh (1985), Ind.App., 473 N.E.2d 1033, 1037, quoting In re Grand Jury Investigation (1979), 3dCir., 599 F.2d 1224, 1229.
27. Richey v. Chappell (1991), Ind.App., 572 N.E.2d 1338, 1340; Burr v. United Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company (1990), Ind.App., 560 N.E.2d 1250, 1255; American Buildings Company v. Kokomo Grain Company, Inc. (1987), Ind.App., 506 N.E.2d 56, 64.
30. Burr v. United Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company (1990), Ind.App., 560 N.E.2d 1250, 1256-1257.
31. State v. Hogan (1992), Ind.App., 588 N.E.2d 560, 563.
32. Burr v. United Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company (1990), Ind.App., 560 N.E.2d 1250, 1255.
34. 657 N.E.2d 745 (Ind.App. 1995).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.