Opinion ID: 880432
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Investigative File

Text: The District Court ordered the defendant to turn over Safeco's entire investigative file as it existed prior to the filing of the complaint. That order is not entirely supported by the law in Montana. Certainly, the judge was protecting any work product which would have been generated after the legal action was commenced and was merely assuring the exchange of discoverable information in fulfillment of the letter and the spirit of discovery rules. However, we conclude that there is no legal basis for such a broad order. That portion of the District Court order is reversed and modified as follows: We order that any and all witness statements in Safeco's file be disclosed. We held in Cantrell v. Henderson (1986), 221 Mont. 201, 718 P.2d 318, 43 St.Rep. 745, that a witness statement given by the defendant to his insurance carrier prior to the filing of the complaint is discoverable. Admittedly, defense counsel does not dispute the discoverability of the Thompson statement, but rather cites mere inadvertence for his failure to disclose. We have in this case a failure to disclose discoverable documents through negligent or willful conduct, thus warranting this Court's order that all such statements in Safeco's possession be revealed. However, any motion to disclose an entire investigative file must be objected to by specific objections to any part which the defendant does not wish to disclose. Then the District Court can handle those objections during the normal course of the discovery process. This may require the plaintiffs to make additional, more specific requests for particular pieces of information.