Court Opinion

ID: 9686524
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 15:52:57.392789+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:19.760948
License: Public Domain

Caporale, J.,
dissenting.
I dissent. Although the record establishes that defendant has engaged in considerable gamesmanship, it does not establish what efforts, if any, have been made by plaintiff to interview the witness Jack Lawson. In the absence of such a showing I cannot conclude that the “substantial need” and “undue hardship” required by Neb. Ct. R. 26(b)(3) (Rev. 1983) of the Nebraska Discovery Rules for production of Lawson’s statement have been met, even if the statement is “otherwise discoverable” under rule 26(b)(1), a question we need not address in the present posture of this case.
*506If we were to take instruction from the cases interpreting and applying Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, the progenitor of our rule 26, we would learn that the substantial need and undue hardship burdens are not met by a mere desire to learn what kind of case the opposing party has. In United States v. Chatham City Corp., 72 F.R.D. 640 (S.D. Ga. 1976), the court concluded that since the defendant landlords in a civil rights action could obtain the substantial equivalent of witness statements given to government agents by personal interviews, depositions, or by written interrogatories, the defendants had not shown sufficient undue hardship or need for production of the statements obtained by the government. Stated another way, the record must make a “strong showing of need.” Ohio-Sealy Mattress Mfg. Co. v. Sealy, Inc., 90 F.R.D. 45 (N.D. Ill. 1981). No showing of need in any degree exists in this case. It is not supplied by our pique at defendant’s craftiness. Accordingly, I would reverse with directions to dismiss the contempt citation.