Opinion ID: 2432591
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: interrogatories 3, 4, and 6

Text: Interrogatories 3, 4, and 6 asked the following: 3. Have any statements or reports been obtained from any persons, including physicians or hospitals, regarding the occurrence or injuries described in Plaintiff's Petition? 4. If so, name the persons from whom statements or reports have been obtained, the date of said statements or reports, the number of said statements or reports, whether oral or written, to who said statements or reports were made and the location of said statement or reports at the present time. 6. State whether any statements were taken pertaining to the occurrence mentioned in Plaintiff's Petition, either signed or unsigned, recorded by court reporter or stenographer. If so, state: (a) when said statements were taken; (b) who took said statement; (c) where said statements were taken; (d) who was present at the time said statements were taken; (e) who gave said statements; and (f) who currently has possession of said statements. Santa Fe complied in part with Interrogatories 3 and 6 by producing copies of medical records obtained and documents obtained from Herriman. In addition, Santa Fe identified all known fact witnesses and produced all statements from plaintiff and his physicians. Although Herriman did not request production of the witness statements themselves, Santa Fe objected to the balance of the above interrogatories because they sought information protected under the intangible work product privilege. To the extent the above interrogatories seek any information regarding oral interviews of persons contacted, they seek information that is clearly protected as intangible work product. See Otto, 866 S.W.2d at 483-84. As to written or recorded statements, we have no difficulty in understanding how the above interrogatories seek information that would, to some degree, reveal Santa Fe's attorney's mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. The broad interrogatories seek a schematic of the attorney's investigative process. In general, this schematic aides the other attorney not because it reveals facts relevant to the case, but because it reveals the investigative process and relative weight attributed to certain witnesses' statements by the opposing side. The work product doctrine applies to protect the requested information. Interrogatories 3, 4, and 6 do, however, ask for certain information that, as a practical matter, Santa Fe may be required to disclose. Santa Fe may have to divulge sufficient information regarding tangible witness statements, written or recorded, to allow Herriman to assess the applicability of any privilege that Santa Fe might claim under Rule 56.01(b)(3). That is, if Santa Fe claims a tangible work product privilege regarding tangible witness statements, Herriman must know which documents are claimed to be privileged and must have sufficient information to assess whether the claimed privilege is applicable to the document or tangible thing. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure now employ a mechanism for the disclosure of this information. Subsection 5 was added to Rule 26(b) in 1993 and provides: When a party withholds information otherwise discoverable under these rules by claiming that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial preparation material, the party shall make the claim expressly and shall describe the nature of the documents, communications, or things not produced or disclosed in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable other parties to assess the applicability of the privilege or protection. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(5). The Committee Notes on Use to the new subsection explain that the providing of the information necessary to determine the applicability of the claimed privilege should reduce the need for in camera examination of the documents. This promotes the ever-present aim of efficiency in the discovery process. Further, the rule does not attempt to define for each case what information must be provided when a party asserts a claim of privilege. Details concerning time, persons, general subject matter, etc., may be appropriate if only a few items are withheld, but may be unduly burdensome when voluminous documents are claimed to be privileged or protected.... Committee Notes on Use to Rule 26(b)(5). Although as of yet there is no subsection in the Missouri Rules equivalent to the Federal Rule 26(b)(5), the justifications for the subsection are equally valid in Missouri's courts. Disclosure of information necessary to determine the applicability of a work product privilege promotes efficiency in the discovery process without encroaching seriously upon the attorney's mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. The disclosure of such information is required, however, only when a tangible work product privilege is claimed. Because the witness statements have not been requested of Santa Fe, it has claimed no work product privilege to the statements and need not answer the interrogatories. But, if the interrogatories accompany or follow a motion for production of the actual statements and Santa Fe claims a tangible work product privilege, then it must make the claim expressly and identify the nature of the documents, communications, or things not produced or disclosed in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable the other party to assess the applicability of the privilege or protection.