Court Opinion

ID: 9620025
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 05:37:15.630398+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:50:16.569389
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Justice CUNNINGHAM.
I reluctantly dissent from the excellent work of Justice Venters who so ably wrote for the majority in this case.
Common sense dictates that the written statements taken from witnesses within two weeks of this tragedy, and those taken six months later, cannot be the "substantial equivalent" in quality and veracity. This is the second requirement of the two prong test established by Transit Authority of River City v. Vinson, 703 S.W.2d 482 (Ky.App.1985), the pivotal case cited by the majority. I fully understand the explanation by Justice Venters that the Real Parties in Interest "have made no attempt to take depositions from any of the witnesses ... to see what information is obtainable." However, it makes no difference what "information is obtainable" at that later date, as the fresh reports from vivid recollections taken immediately after the event can never be recaptured.
Therefore, while I agree that the statements were work product, I do believe the plaintiffs have a "substantial need" of the statements because the "substantial equivalent" cannot be acquired through additional discovery or otherwise. Thus, the statements are discoverable. I would affirm both the Court of Appeals and the trial court and require that the statements be produced to the plaintiffs.