Opinion ID: 1156962
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Availability of the information.

Text: On any consideration of the work product doctrine, we must consider an additional factor: availability of the item sought in discovery. If the information sought is equally available to both parties, it receives the broadest protection. Cf. Hickman, 329 U.S. at 511, 67 S.Ct. at 394. However, if the information sought is unavailable to one of the parties, the work product doctrine may not protect it, ensuring that both parties have equal access to all information necessary for a fair determination of the case. Id. Indeed, the criminal rules explicitly recognize this principle of equal access to information. Rule 15.1(e) (applying to defendants) and Rule 15.2(f) (applying to the state) allow a party to obtain material on a showing of substantial need of the material, which the party cannot obtain without undue hardship. These rules embody the concepts in Hickman. See Comment, Rule 15.1(e) (citing Rule 26(b)(3), Ariz.R. Civ.P, 16 A.R.S.) (embodying Hickman ); cf. Rule 26(b)(4)(B), Ariz.R.Civ.P., 16 A.R.S. (allowing a party in a civil case to obtain discovery of information pertaining to non-testifying experts on showing exceptional circumstances under which it is impracticable for the party seeking discovery to obtain facts or opinions ... by other means). The soil samples here are physical facts to which the state and defense have equal access. They came from property owned by a third party. The state took soil samples at the beginning of this proceeding, and presumably could have taken soil samples again any time before the indictment. In short, the state had equal access to the soil, could have taken its own samples, and could have hired its own expert. No reason exists, then, for fine distinctions between fact and opinion, conclusion and observation. In such cases, we believe it better to allow no exceptions to the procedure that will best ensure a fair and accurate resolution of the question of guilt or innocence [by demanding] that adequate safeguards assure the thorough preparation and presentation of each side of the case. Nobles, 422 U.S. at 238, 95 S.Ct. at 2170.