Court Opinion

ID: 9697904
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:36:45.618334+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:36.866428
License: Public Domain

BECKER, Justice
(specially concurring).
I concur because it is clear plaintiff made his application for production of books and documents before answer was filed. However, it is apparent the trial court’s decision is based on the character of the information rather than the timing of the filing. Rule 129, upon which we turn in this case, was not considered by the trial court. Obviously the court’s ruling on the basis of rule 141 (a) forecasts the same result if and when timely application is made. Therefore it would appear the observations made for the trial court’s benefit when the matter is raised anew are too equivocal.
The real issue here is whether a party can procure a copy of his own written statement prior to trial or prior to his appearance to take his deposition. We should clearly state that any person who gives a written or recorded verbal statement is entitled to a copy of it upon request. If the person is reduced to a discovery proceeding to get a copy of his own statement, the production should be ordered and failure to so order should be conclusively presumed to be a denial which would, in the words of the rule, “result in injustice or undue hardship.”
See Fleming James, Jr., Civil Procedure, section 6.10, page 212-: “Special necessity should also be found where the discoverer is seeking his own statement or that of another party. In the first place, such statements are always potential substantive evidence against the party making them and as we have seen that should suffice to justify discovery. In this respect party statements are different from statements of nonparty witnesses which are admissible, if at all, only for purposes of impeaching the witness. Beyond that, where a party seeks to inspect his own prior statement, taken by the other side before the party is represented by counsel, there is a widespread feeling on the part of courts and legislatures that common fairness and decency require that he be given that chance. In spite of this some courts have denied discovery of a party’s own prior statement unless there is an additional showing of necessity.”
A strong stand on this matter would be fully justified by the American Bar Association’s compact with the various insurance companies and insurance adjusters,1 *705which reads in part: “ * * * . (b) The companies may properly interview .any witnesses, or prospective witnesses, without the consent of opposing counsel or party. * * .
“If any witness making a signed statement so requests, he shall be given a copy thereof.
“Note: At a meeting on March 7, 1954, the Conference Committee agreed.:-, (1) that' this language applies to all witnesses— plaintiff’s, defendant’s and neutral witnesses; (2) that no time limit is placed upon the witness requesting a copy of this statement; and (3) that the obligation to furnish the copy of the statement runs only to the witness himself or herself.” Martin-dale-Hubbell Law Directory, Vol. Ill, pages 144A and 145A.
Of course there is no showing that the lawyers here involved are members of the American Bar Association or that any insurance companies or insurance adjusters are even in this case, much less bound by the agreement. Further, it is quite true that this court and the trial court need pay no heed to the compact. In fact, no one seems to pay much heed to the agreement except the Martindale-Hubbell Company which faithfully reprints the compacts of the American Bar Association each year.
Nevertheless, the quoted portion of the agreement affords recognition to what should be a self-evident principle; namely, when a recorded statement is taken from a person, be he party, witness or bystander, that person should be entitled to a copy of the statement upon request.
We should continue to minimize the effects of the game of chance that is our adversary system. I would plainly indicate to the trial court that, upon proper timely request, plaintiff should be entitled to his' own statement wherever and to whomever made, if it is in possession of defendant or his representative.
STUART and MASON, JJ., join in this special concurrence.

. It has been approved by: American Bar Association, American Mutual Alliance, Association of Casualty and Surety Companies, International Claim Association, National Board of Fire Underwriters, National Association of Independent Insurance Adjusters and the National Association of Independent Insurers.