Opinion ID: 1447783
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Work-Product Privilege

Text: On cross-appeal, Quickway argues that the district court erred in ruling that a written statement given by Dailey to Quickway two days after the accident was not protected by the work-product privilege. On July 9, 2007, the district court granted the Estate's motion to compel production of Dailey's written statement to Quickway, rejecting without discussion Quickway's assertion that the document was protected by the work-product privilege. We review a district court's work product privilege determination for abuse of discretion. United States v. Roxworthy, 457 F.3d 590, 592 (6th Cir. 2006). As set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(3), the work-product privilege protects from discovery documents and tangible things that are prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or its representative. FED.R.CIV.P. 26(b)(3). Once the party requesting discovery establishes relevance, the objecting party has the burden of showing that the material was prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial. In re Powerhouse Licensing, LLC, 441 F.3d 467, 473 (6th Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). In determining whether a document was prepared in anticipation of litigation, this court asks whether it was prepared or obtained because of the prospect of litigation. Roxworthy, 457 F.3d at 593. The test to determine whether a document was prepared because of the prospect of litigation has both a subjective and an objective element and asks: (1) whether a document was created because of a party's subjective anticipation of litigation, as contrasted with an ordinary business purpose, and (2) whether that subjective anticipation of litigation was objectively reasonable. Id. at 594. This court has explained that a party may satisfy its burden of showing anticipation of litigation `in any of the traditional ways in which proof is produced in pretrial proceedings such as affidavits made on personal knowledge, depositions, or answers to interrogatories,' and that the showing `can be opposed or controverted in the same manner.' Id. at 597 (quoting Toledo Edison Co. v. G A Techs., Inc., 847 F.2d 335, 339 (6th Cir. 1988)). Where an undisputed affidavit ... is specific and detailed to indicate that the documents were prepared in anticipation of litigation or trial, then the party claiming work product protection has met its burden. However, application of the privilege will be rejected where the only basis for the claim is an affidavit containing conclusory statement[s]. Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (alteration in original). In the instant case, Quickway came forward with no affidavits, depositions, or equivalent proof showing that Dailey's written statement was prepared in anticipation of litigation. It is undisputed that Dailey's statement, which describes the events surrounding the accident, is relevant. Quickway, therefore, had the burden of showing that the statement was prepared in anticipation of litigation. Quickway's response to the Estate's motion to compel, however, was unaccompanied by any form of proof showing that Dailey's statement was created in anticipation of litigation. Instead, the only evidentiary material attached to Quickway's response was a sixteen-page excerpt from Dailey's deposition, which Quickway cited for the proposition that the Estate had failed to show substantial need and undue hardship. Indeed, the bulk of Quickway's response (like its appellate brief) was devoted to arguing that the Estate had failed to demonstrate substantial need and undue hardship. Quickway fails to recognize that it first had the burden of showing that the document was prepared in anticipation of litigation before the burden shifted to the Estate to show substantial need and undue hardship. See In re Powerhouse Licensing, LLC, 441 F.3d at 473 (explaining that if the objecting party fails to meet its burden of showing that the document was prepared in anticipation of litigation, the court's inquiry ends and the documents must be produced). Quickway did not come forward with any affidavits or similar proof demonstrating that Dailey's statement was prepared in anticipation of litigation, much less the kind of specific and detailed evidentiary material that would be sufficient to meet this burden. Roxworthy, 457 F.3d at 597. Because Quickway failed to carry its burden of demonstrating that Dailey's written statement was prepared in anticipation of litigation, the district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting Quickway's claim that this document was protected by the work-product privilege.