Opinion ID: 1210535
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 17

Heading: the district court properly denied wood's request to take the deposition of the prosecuting attorney.

Text: Prior to trial of the claim for post-conviction relief, Wood sought to take the deposition of the prosecuting attorney to obtain his recollection of the plea bargaining discussions between himself and trial counsel, Monte Whittier. The district court denied the request. Wood did not cite to authority for the assertion that he should have the right to depose the prosecuting attorney, and the district court noted that this Court has not ruled on the right of a party to depose opposing counsel, including the prosecuting attorney. The district court relied on California cases holding: The circumstances under which opposing counsel may be deposed are limited to those where (1) no other means exist to obtain the information than to depose opposing counsel; (2) the information sought is relevant and not privileged; (3) the information is crucial to the preparation of the case. Spectra-Physics, Inc. v. Superior Court, 198 Cal.App.3d 1487, 244 Cal.Rptr. 258, 263 (Cal. App. 6 Dist.1988); Estate of Ruchti, 12 Cal. App.4th 1593, 16 Cal.Rptr.2d 151 (Cal.App. 2 Dist.1993). The Louisiana Supreme Court has recognized that the practice of deposing attorneys of record is greatly disfavored, because it results in unnecessary delays, potential harassment, and, in the extreme case, to the disqualification of an attorney. Board of Comm'rs of the New Orleans Exhibition Auth. v. Missouri Pac. R.R., 647 So.2d 340, 340-41 (La.1994). But see Munn v. Bristol Bay Hous. Auth., 777 P.2d 188, 196 (Alaska 1989) (an attorney is no more entitled to withhold information than any other potential witness, and may be required to testify at a deposition or trial as to material, non-privileged matters). Considering the potential difficulties that may arise if counsel may be deposed, the district court adopted proper standards in determining whether Wood could depose the prosecuting attorney. Applying those standards, Wood failed to establish that no other means existed to obtain the information than to depose opposing counsel. The information Wood sought was available from Whittier. Wood also failed to establish that the information was crucial to the preparation of the case. The district court properly denied Wood's request to depose the prosecuting attorney.