Source: https://m.openjurist.org/403/f2d/119
Timestamp: 2020-02-27 05:46:54
Document Index: 343286292

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2422', '§ 2422', '§ 652', '§ 87', '§ 652', '§ 652']

403 F2d 119 Southern Railway Company v. Lanham | OpenJurist
403 F. 2d 119 - Southern Railway Company v. Lanham
403 F2d 119 Southern Railway Company v. Lanham
403 F.2d 119
Rehearing En Banc Denied March 4, 1969.
Burt DeRieux, Greene, Buckley, DeRieux, Moore & Jones, James A. Eichelberger, Atlanta, Ga., for appellant.
At the outset, we must decide whether this Court has jurisdiction of this appeal. Although the issue was not briefed by the parties or presented in the oral argument before this Court, there is a substantial question to be resolved regarding the appealability of the lower court's contempt order. It is well established that as to a party to a suit a civil contempt order is interlocutory and reviewable only upon appeal taken from a final judgment or decree. Fox v. Capital Co., 1936, 299 U.S. 105, 59 S.Ct. 57, 81 L.Ed. 67; Duell v. Duell, 1949, 85 U.S.App.D.C. 78, 178 F.2d 683, 14 A.L.R. 2d 560; 6 Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 54.17. Although an adjudication of civil contempt is final and appealable as to a non-party who would be unable to appeal from the final decision on the merits, see McCrone v. United States, 1939, 307 U.S. 61, 59 S.Ct. 685, 83 L.Ed. 1108; Bessette v. W. B. Conkey Co., 1904, 194 U.S. 324, 24 S.Ct. 665, 48 L.Ed. 997, a civil contempt order issued against a party lacks the requisite finality because its validity can be tested by an appeal from the final judgment. Fox v. Capital Co., supra; Developments in the Law — Discovery, 74 Harv.L.Rev. 940, 996 (1961). On the other hand, an adjudication of criminal contempt is a final judgment and the contemnor, whether a party or non-party, may obtain immediate review by appeal. Union Tool Co. v. Wilson, 1922, 259 U.S. 107, 42 S.Ct. 427, 66 L.Ed. 848; Duell v. Duell, supra.
The important tests in determining the character of a contempt are the nature and purpose of the punishment. Donato v. United States, 3d Cir. 1931, 48 F.2d 142, 143; 4 Barron, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2422 (1951); see Fox v. Capital Co., supra. Civil contempt is "wholly remedial" serves only the purpose of a party litigant, and is intended to coerce compliance with an order of the court or to compensate for losses or damages caused by noncompliance. McComb v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 1949, 336 U.S. 187, 191, 69 S.Ct. 497, 499, 93 L.Ed. 599; Penfield Co. of California v. S. E. C., 1947, 330 U.S. 585, 590, 67 S.Ct. 918, 921, 91 L.Ed. 1117; McCrone v. United States, supra; Scott v. Hunt Oil Co., 5th Cir. 1968, 398 F.2d 810 [July 24, 1968]; 6 Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 54.17. Criminal contempt, on the other hand, is punitive, rather than remedial, serves to vindicate the authority of the court, and cannot be ended by any act of the contemnor. Nye v. United States, 1941, 313 U.S. 33, 43, 61 S.Ct. 810, 813, 85 L.Ed. 1172; Fox v. Capital Co., infra; Gompers v. Bucks Stove & R. Co., supra; Barron, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2422, at 374-75. On the basis of these well-established principles, we conclude that the order before us is criminal. The order imposes an unconditional fine payable to the court for appellant's "wilful and wanton disregard for this Court's order of production." "It awards no relief to a private suitor." Nye v. United States, supra. It does not permit appellant to purge itself and remove the sanction by compliance with the court's discovery order. The contemnor does not "carr[y] the keys of his prison in his own pocket," and therefore the fine "operates not as a remedy coercive in its nature, but solely as punishment for the completed act of disobedience." Gompers v. Bucks Stove & R. Co., supra, 221 U.S. 418 at 442, 31 S.Ct. 492 at 498, 55 L.Ed. 797 at 806.
Moreover, the procedure adopted by the trial court was consistent with the penalty imposed. It has been held that a wholly punitive sanction can be properly imposed only in a proceeding instituted and conducted as a criminal contempt. Gompers v. Bucks Stove & R. Co., supra, 221 U.S. at 444, 31 S.Ct. at 499; see Cliett v. Hammonds, 5th Cir. 1962, 305 F.2d 565. Consequently, a criminal sanction is invalid if imposed in proceedings that are instituted and tried as a civil contempt. Penfield Co. of California v. S. E. C., supra, 380 U.S. at 595, 67 S.Ct. at 923. In that event, the contempt is not considered criminal for purposes of establishing appeal. The usual procedure is to reverse the citation for contempt and remand it to the trial court in order that a proper civil penalty can be imposed or in order that a criminal proceeding can be conducted. Duell v. Duell, supra, 178 F.2d at 689. Here, the court acted sua sponte to hold appellant in contempt. Despite the recital of the trial court that the contempt was "civil," we view the proceeding below as one between the court, acting to vindicate its authority, on one side, and the appellant-contemnor on the other. The proceeding could properly be regarded as one for criminal contempt, and a criminal sanction was appropriate. Therefore, there was no "variance — between the procedure adopted and the punishment imposed." Gompers v. Bucks Stove & R. Co., supra, 221 U.S. at 449, 31 S.Ct. at 501.
Finally, a citation for criminal contempt pursuant to a refusal to obey an order of production is within the authority conferred on the district courts by Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Hickman v. Taylor, 3d Cir. 1945, 153 F.2d 212, 214, n. 1, aff'd, 1947, 329 U.S. 495, 67 S.Ct. 385. Rule 37(b) (2) authorizes the district court to impose such sanctions as are "just" when any party "refuses to obey * * an order made under Rule 34 to produce any document * * *." Accordingly, since the conviction for criminal contempt was final and appealable, and since appellant has filed a timely notice of appeal, we proceed to the merits of this controversy.1
It is clear, despite several district court decisions to the contrary,2 that Rule 34 is not satisfied by showing simply that the desired papers are relevant to the subject matter of the action.3 So much is commanded by the language of the rule itself. It seems equally clear that the demonstration of "good cause," required in all cases for the production of materials under Rule 34, need not be as great as the showing of "necessity or justification" required to overcome the qualified immunity from discovery conferred upon the "work product of an attorney" under Hickman v. Taylor, 1947, 329 U.S. 495, 67 S.Ct 385, 91 L.Ed. 451.4 The work product exception is based on the public policy of preserving the independence of lawyers through the avoidance of unwarranted intrusion into their private files and mental processes. No such policy is involved where, as here, the movant seeks to obtain written statements of witnesses taken by a claim agent; and the underlying purpose of the discovery rules to provide free access to the facts can be given greater effect. 4 Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 26.23 [8.2]; but see Alltmont v. United States, 3d Cir. 1950, 177 F.2d 971. Thus "good cause" requires something more than relevance and something less than the demonstration required to overcome the work product immunity.
Appellant maintains that inasmuch as the crew members are available for depositions, good cause does not exist. A substantial number of decisions support appellant's position that the availability of the witnesses whose statements are sought obviates a finding of good cause.6 This view, however, is unduly narrow, inasmuch as the real question is whether the movant can obtain the facts without production of the documents containing the original statements. Therefore, the likelihood that the movant, even though he presently can obtain statements from the witnesses by deposition, will not obtain the substantial equivalent of the prior statements he seeks to obtain through production should also be considered. See Advisory Committee's Note, Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendments to Rules of Civil Procedure Relating to Depositions and Discovery, Nov. 1967, 43 F.R. D. 211, 232.
In this case, it is doubtful that appellees could presently obtain a full and accurate disclosure of the facts through depositions of the train crew. In the first place, ten months elapsed before the suit was filed, and almost another year intervened before the interrogatories were answered and the motion to produce was entertained by the court. Statements taken at that point are likely to be unreliable due to the lapse of time. For this reason, statements taken from the witnesses shortly after the accident constitute "unique catalysts in the search for truth," Johnson v. Ford, D.Colo.1964, 35 F.R.D. 347, 350, in that they provide an immediate impression of the facts that cannot be recreated or duplicated by a deposition that relies upon memory,7 and many courts have held that the mere lapse of time in itself is enough to justify production of the statements.8
Moreover, the written statements were made by employees of appellant, who may be expected to be somewhat reluctant to answer fully questions propounded by one pursuing a cause of action against their employer. See Redfern v. American President Lines, Limited, N.D.Cal.1963, 228 F.Supp. 227, 231; Scuderi v. Boston Ins. Co., supra; cf. McDonald v. Prowdley, W.D.Mich. 1965, 38 F.R.D. 1, 3. Appellant urges that a specific showing of hostility or reluctance is required to establish good cause, see Guilford Nat'l Bank v. Southern Ry. Co., supra, 297 F.2d at 926; Goosman v. Duie Pyle, Inc., 4th Cir. 1963, 320 F.2d 45; Diamond v. Mohawk Rubber Co., D.Colo.1963, 33 F.R.D. 264, 266, and points to the ease with which the news media elicited information from the crew to indicate that the crew members were both accessible and cooperative. Nevertheless, the employment relationship would appear to create a situation of inequality between the parties with respect to gathering accurate statements from the crew. Redfern v. American President Lines, Limited, supra, 228 F.Supp. at 231; see 4 Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 26.23, at 1418-19. It seems to be generally recognized that "the requirement of good cause is more easily satisfied when witnesses are employees than in the usual case," Guilford Nat'l Bank v. Southern Ry. Co., supra, 297 F.2d at 926; and we agree with the trial court that this was another factor favoring production. Good cause is therefore shown for production because the lapse of time and the employment relationship strongly suggest that the full and accurate disclosure of facts, which it is the purpose of the discovery process to secure, could not be accomplished through other means.
Appellant maintains, however, that the witnesses have been available from the beginning, and that appellees' failure to take advantage of previously available means of discovery negatives a finding of good cause. It argues that production should not be allowed where the moving party has failed to show a bona fide attempt to obtain the information by independent investigation. Goldner v. Chicago & N. W. R. System, N.D.Ill. 1952, 13 F.R.D. 326, 329; Diamond v. Mohawk Rubber Co., supra, 33 F.R.D. at 266; see Hauger v. Chicago, R. I. & Pac. R. Co., 7th Cir. 1954, 216 F.2d 501, 508. Although it recognizes the special value of witness statements taken soon after the accident, appellant maintains, as do some courts, that the lapse of time must be examined "in relation to the time that the movant should have first taken the depositions of the persons who made the statements or prepared the reports (diligence)." Scuderi v. Boston Ins. Co., supra, D.Del.1964, 34 F.R.D. 463, 467. Appellant's position is essentially this: Not only must the information sought through discovery be presently unavailable through other means, but, in addition, the movant must have exercised due diligence in attempting to secure the information. Appellees have not shown a reason for their inability to secure the information and thus "cannot be entitled to rely entirely upon the defendant's efforts." Guilford Nat'l Bank v. Southern Ry. Co., supra, 297 F.2d at 926. Accordingly, it is argued, good cause for production does not, cannot exist.
Durkin v. Pet Milk Co., W.D.Ark.1953, 14 F.R.D. 385, 398. We are not concerned here with an intrusion into the private files or the mental processes of an attorney. Discovery would not "enable a learned profession to perform its function either without wits or on wits borrowed from the adversary." Hickman v. Taylor, supra, 329 U.S. at 516, 67 S.Ct. at 396 (Jackson, J. concurring.) In the absence of other countervailing considerations, we must reject the rigid rule that the moving party must always show that he has been unable to obtain statements of his own from the witnesses. Accord People of State of Calif. v. United States, N.D.Cal.1961, 27 F.R.D. 261, 262; 4 Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 26.23, at 1416-17.
In the case before us, as indicated, there was a considerable lapse of time between the occurrence and the filing of suit and motion for production.9 Depositions or interviews taken at that point would certainly be less reliable than the immediate impression of the facts contained in the prior statements. The account of the facts contained in the prior statements is therefore necessary to the adequate preparation of appellees' case, and the appellees would be placed at a substantial disadvantage if production were denied. The production of the statements will materially advance the "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination" of this action. Rule 1, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; see Crowe v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co., E.D. Mich.1961, 29 F.R.D. 148, 151. Accordingly, we hold that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in ordering the production of the statements of the train crew.
It appears that following an accident the claim agent or investigating officer for the railroad typically investigates the case and submits a report containing, among other things, his evaluation of the cause of the accident and whether it ought to be settled. These reports are valuable to the railroad in accident evaluation and in the disposition of claims. Nevertheless, disclosure of the opinions and recommendations contained in these reports could prove disadvantageous to the railroad, and the fear of discovery might deter it from seeking full and candid evaluations of the cause of accidents and the proper disposition of claims. Cf. Developments in the Law — Discovery, 74 Harv.L.Rev. 940, 1032 (1961).10 As a result, "much of what is now put in writing would remain unwritten, and amicable settlements made more difficult." Guilford Nat'l Bank of Greensboro v. Southern Ry. Co., D.N.C.1960, 24 F.R.D. 493, 500, rev'd on other grounds, 4th Cir. 1962, 297 F.2d 921. Absent complete and honest reports, effective accident evaluation may be impaired and the prevention of future accidents hampered. See O'Keefe v. Boeing Co., S.D.N.Y.1965, 38 F.R.D. 329, 334. Therefore, we conclude that the discovery of those portions of the documents reflecting the mental processes and impressions of claim agents or investigators should be conditioned upon a strong showing of "necessity or justification," "hardship or injustice" similar to that required to overcome the qualified immunity from discovery conferred upon the work product of an attorney under Hickman v. Taylor.11
It has been suggested that any extension of the immunity from discovery beyond that necessary to avoid unwarranted intrusions into the files and mental processes of attorneys is inconsistent with the policy and scope of the Court's decision in Hickman. See 4 Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 26.23 [8.-1], at 1388. It is true that the Court's decision in Hickman was limited to matters obtained by an attorney in preparing a case for trial. Indeed, the Court's explicit emphasis on the special role of the attorney in our adversary system of justice may suggest that the holding of the case need not be extended to materials other than those prepared by an attorney. 4 Moore's Federal Practice, supra, at 1391; see E. I. DuPont De Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., D.Del.1959, 24 F.R.D. 416, 420. Moreover, the Court made it clear that the "discovery rules are to be accorded a broad and liberal treatment" and that "mutual knowledge of all the relevant facts gathered by both parties is essential to proper litigation." Hickman v. Taylor, supra, 329 U.S. at 507, 67 S.Ct. at 392. Nevertheless, Hickman strongly suggests that the policy favoring free access to the facts must submit, at least to some degree, where countervailing considerations, such as those applicable when an attorney's privacy is involved, stand opposed to disclosure.12 In all but clear cases the policy favoring discovery should be given effect and a greater showing ought to be required only where the opposing considerations are substantial. We think, however, that the potentially adverse impact that may result from disclosure of the opinions and evaluations in question is sufficient to warrant the requirement of a special showing for their disclosure.
No such showing has been made in the case before us. With respect to the report filed in connection with the accident giving rise to the present actions, as well as those relating to a subsequent accident, it is clear that disclosure of the opinions and evaluations of appellant's agents would neither materially aid opposing counsel nor promote the cause of justice. Guilford Nat'l Bank v. Southern Ry. Co., supra; cf. Diniero v. United States Lines Co., S.D.N.Y.1957, 21 F.R.D. 316, 317. No doubt opposing counsel would like to confront the railroad with an evaluation or recommendation from its own agent that tends to undermine the railroad's case. But the agent's impressions are by no means necessary for the adequate preparation of appellees' case.
The investigation reports contained in the files of two prior claims arising out of an accident at the same crossing stand on a somewhat different footing.13 The prior claims could constitute notice of the dangerous nature of the crossing, and under the applicable Georgia substantive law, may be admitted as evidence at trial. Western & Atlantic R. Co. v. Slate, 1918, 23 Ga.App. 225, 97 S.E. 878. Appellees maintain that the evaluations, conclusions and recommendations contained in the reports are unique and must be discoverable in order to establish what actual notice the railroad might have had. But the factual elements of these reports — witness statements, facts personally observed by the agents — are discoverable, and these materials should be sufficient to enable appellees to prepare this aspect of the case. An allegation of actual prior notice of danger can be supported without evidence that the railroad's investigating officers actually thought the crossing to be dangerous. We cannot conclude, in any event, that the denial of such production would "unduly prejudice the preparation of [appellees'] case or cause [them] any hardship or injustice." Hickman v. Taylor, supra, 329 U.S. at 509, 67 S.Ct. at 392.14
We now consider appellant's assertion that the trial court erroneously required it to produce documents contained in the files of other accidents reflecting communications between attorney and client, which are privileged and immune from discovery. The attorney-client privilege was first raised, along with the work-product objections, in appellant's motion for reconsideration of the court's order to produce. Appellees maintain that the objection was not timely and that appellant has therefore waived the privilege. The trial court, however, explicitly rejected the waiver argument, a conclusion entitled to weighty consideration on appeal. Although the court was referring to the work-product objection, there is no basis for treating the attorney-client privilege differently, inasmuch as it was raised in the same motion. Appellant has not voluntarily made the challenged materials available to the other party, see United States v. Kelsey-Hayes Wheel Co., E.D.Mich.1954, 15 F.R.D. 461, and there are no other circumstances supporting a finding of waiver. See generally 4 Moore's Federal Practice ¶¶ 33.27 and 33.29[3]. We therefore consider the privilege issue on its merits.
E.g., Houdry Process Corp. v. Commonwealth Oil Ref. Co., S.D.N.Y.1959, 24 F.R.D. 58; Connecticut Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Shields, S.D.N.Y.1955, 17 F.R.D. 273, 277; Guilford Nat. Bank of Greensboro v. Southern Ry. Co., D.N.C.1960, 24 F.R.D. 493, rev'd, 4th Cir. 1962, 297 F.2d 921
Schlagenhauf v. Holder, supra; Guilford Nat'l Bank of Greensboro v. Southern Ry. Co., 4th Cir. 1962, 297 F.2d 921; Crowe v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co., E.D.Mich.1961, 29 F.R.D. 148
Uncle Ben's Inc. v. Uncle Ben's Pancake Houses, Inc., S.D.Tex.1962, 30 F.R.D. 506; Durkin v. Pet Milk Co., W.D.Ark. 1953, 14 F.R.D. 385; 2A Barron & Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure § 652.4 (Wright ed. 1961); Wright, Federal Courts § 87, at 337 (1963)
E. g., Guilford Nat'l Bank of Greensboro v. Southern Ry. Co., supra; Hauger v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pac. Ry. Co., 7th Cir. 1954, 216 F.2d 501, 507; Scuderi v. Boston Ins. Co., D.Del.1964, 34 F.R.D. 463
E.g., Uncle Ben's, Inc. v. Uncle Ben's Pancake Houses, Inc., supra; Richards v. Maine Central Rd., D.Me.1957, 21 F. R.D. 593; Goldner v. Chicago & N.W. Ry. System, N.D.Ill.1952, 13 F.R.D. 326
Johnson v. Ford, supra; People of State of California v. United States, N.D.Cal. 1961, 27 F.R.D. 261; Brown v. New York, N.M. & H.R. Co., S.D.N.Y.1955, 17 F.R.D. 324; Durkin v. Pet Milk Co., supra; Herbst v. Chicago, R. I. & Pac. R. Co., S.D.Iowa 1950, 10 F.R.D. 14; De Bruce v. Pennsylvania R. Co., E.D.Pa. 1947, 6 F.R.D. 403, 406. These cases all involved the "good cause" requirement of Rule 34. Professor Wright suggests that the lapse of time should be sufficient to overcome the work product immunity. 2A Barron & Holtzoff § 652.4 (Wright ed. 1961). That question, however, is not before us here, inasmuch as the statements were obtained by appellant's claim agent, and we express no opinion on the matter
Appellant emphasizes that appellees' counsel was at the scene of the accident within a day of the occurrence of the accident. There is no indication, however, that he interviewed witnesses or was otherwise able to obtain information at that time which would enable him to adequately prepare the case. We therefore reject appellant's argument that both sides here, as was the case inGuilford, had a more or less contemporaneous record of the facts.
Accord, State of Calif. v. United States, supra, N.D.Cal.1961, 27 F.R.D. 261, 262; Virginia Metal Prod. Corp. v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., S.D.N.Y.1950, 10 F. R.D. 374, 376; see Adams v. United States, 5th Cir. 1958, 260 F.2d 467; 2A Barron & Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure (Wright ed. 1961) § 652.2 at 133
There is some question regarding the application of the discovery order to the contents of the files dealing with prior claims. The court's order of April 15, 1967, encompassed the "file containing records of previous and subsequent accidents occurring at the crossing in question." (R. 94). Then, in its order of May 3, 1967, the court stated that "the materials compiled by its agent J. B. Woods with regard to the accident in questionand the materials dealing with prior accidents must be produced." (R. 105). On the other hand, in the order in which it held appellant to be in contempt, the court stated that "what the court has ordered produced are the statements of [the train crew] * * * and the documents prepared by the defendant's claim agents who * * * filed reports concerning the accident as a routine duty of their employment." (R. 117) The last order would seem to indicate that only materials filed in connection with the accident giving rise to the instant case were to be produced, whereas the previous orders explicitly encompassed the materials dealing with other accidents as well. The last order, however, did not specifically advert to the files of other acidents, and it is therefore unlikely that the trial judge intended, in the absence of clear language to that effect, to restrict that portion of the prior orders. Accordingly, we proceed on the assumption that the discoverability of opinions and evaluations reflected in investigation reports contained in the files of the other accidents is at issue here.