Opinion ID: 2348937
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Substantial Need for Transcript

Text: Here, the grand jury seeks a written transcript of a witness statement obtained by counsel. This statement constitutes material[] collected by an adverse party's counsel in the course of preparation for possible litigation, and, therefore, constitutes work product. Hickman, 329 U.S. at 505, 67 S.Ct. 385. Because it is a written record of the interview, it is tangible work product, which is subject to disclosure upon a showing of substantial need and undue hardship. [6] The grand jury did not plead or prove any reasonable need for the statement. While the grand jury asserted that the statement by the older son was relevant and material to its investigation into the younger son's disappearance, there is no showing of substantial need or undue hardship. The police obtained a statement from the older son in 2003, the year of his brother's disappearance. Rogers then obtained a statement in 2007. The grand jury has not alleged or proved that it was unable to obtain a subsequent statement or procure testimony from the older son following 2003. Because the transcript of the statement from the older son is work product and there was no showing of substantial need or undue hardship, the grand jury subpoena should be quashed. The writ is made absolute. STITH, C.J., PRICE, TEITELMAN, RUSSELL and WOLFF, JJ., concur.