Court Opinion

ID: 9689049
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:17:17.587656+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:43.729174
License: Public Domain

SIMONETT, Justice
(concurring specialty)-
The majority holds that, under Rule 26, “in the factual setting presented here,” statements of corporate employees who are not named parties are freely discoverable on request. I concur in this result, and I join in part 2 of the court’s opinion.
But it seems to me a different result may obtain under Rule 26 if the employee is, say, an owner of a small, closely held business or professional corporation or partnership, and the employee is not just a witness but a *310participant in conduct for which his corporation or partnership is vicariously liable. Rule 26 says a party is not entitled to another party’s statement on request, but only after a required showing. To require such employee’s statement to be surrendered on request if only his corporation is sued but not if he himself is sued would seem to give undue deference to the corporate veil.