Court Opinion

ID: 9601431
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:43:29.296198+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:50:23.217458
License: Public Domain

LOCKWOOD, Vice Chief Justice
(dissenting) .
I cannot'concur with the majority in the foregoing opinion, for the reason that this *127Court did not have a sufficient record before it to justify its interpretation of Rule 34.
The record of the trial court is as follows: the respondent, the defendant Mesa Lumber & Supply Company, (referred to as Mesa Lumber), moved for production of a specific file of the Industrial Commission of Arizona, the plaintiff and petitioner here, (referred to as the Commission). The motion and attached affidavit were in the following words:
“COMES NOW defendant James B. Gardner dba Mesa Lumber and Supply Company, and moves the court for an order requiring plaintiff to produce at a time certain, for inspection by defendant’s counsel, the whole of the Industrial Commission file No. AW48382 in regard to Charles Sullivan. This motion is made under the authority of Rule 34, Rules of Civil Procedure, and is based upon the affidavit of Nathan Holt attached hereto showing good cause for the production of these documents.
“Respectfully submitted
“LEWIS ROCA SCOVILLE
BEAUCHAMP & LINTON
“By s/ Nathan Holt
Attorneys for Defendant-Gardner”
“AFFIDAVIT
“STATE OF ARIZONA ]
“County of Maricopa J ss
“NATHAN HOLT, being first duly sworn upon oath, deposes and says:
“That he is one of the attorneys for defendant James B. Gardner in Cause No. 155685 now pending in the Superior Court of Maricopa County, Arizona; that in the complaint on file in said action the Industrial Commission of Arizona seeks to recover from defendant moneys allegedly paid to one Charles Sullivan for accident benefits and compensation pursuant to the provisions of Section 23-106, Arizona Revised Statutes; that among the issues involved in this litigation would be the reasonableness and necessity of medical expenses, the employment of Charles Sullivan,' the basis for computation of accident benefits and compensation, and the legality of any payments made by the Industrial Commission of Arizona.
“That your affiant is informed and believes and, therefore, alleges that documents pertaining to these various issues and other issues involved in this litigation are contained in the Industrial Commission file of Charles Sullivan; that affiant has no access to that file and ■it is- necessary that he have the opportunity to review same in order to *128properly prepare the defense of the pending litigation.
“s/ Nathan Holt
“Subscribed and sworn to before me this 2nd day of March, 1964.
“s/ Silveria Widmer
Notary Public
“My commission expires April 30, 1967.”
The Commission filed its objections to such motion in the following words :
“COMES NOW the plaintiff by its attorney and objects to the Motion for Production made herein by the'defendant above named on the grounds that said motion and supporting affidavit are too general in nature and that the plaintiff herein is at a loss to know, at this time, the exact documents and things .to which the defendant refers in his Motion for Production.
“Therefore, plaintiff, The Industrial Commission of Arizona, objects to said Motion for Production and prays that the Court either strike the Motion or enter its order directing the defendant to name the particular documents or things contained in The Industrial Commission file referred to in said Motion for Production.
“AUTHORITY
“Dean v. Superior Court of Maricopa County, 84 Ariz. 104, 324 P.2d 764 (1958).
'“Respectfully submitted,
“s/ Frank Murphy
Attorney for Plaintiff
1616 West Adams Street
Phoenix, Arizona”
There was no formal written order on the motion, but the court’s minute entry reads as follows:
“Re: Motion for Production and Inspection of File.
“Respective counsel are present and argue to the Court.
“It is ordered that the Motion of the defendant for Production of Documents is granted.
“Further Ordered that the plaintiff shall make available for inspection by counsel for the defendant on May 4, 1964 at 10:00 a. m., in the office of legal counsel for the plaintiff, the Industrial Commission File designated as #AW48382.”
The Commission relied on the Dean case (cited in the majority decision, supra) as authority to support its objections that the motion and supporting affidavit were too general, and that the Commission was at a loss to know the exact documents and things referred to in the motion. The objection that it was “too general”, so that the Commission could not know to what “exact” documents Mesa Lumber referred, evades the request, which was for the complete specified file. That such file probably *129contained other information not relevant to the particular lawsuit was not the basis of the Commission’s claim in the trial court— although when the Commission petitioned this Court it was so urged in petitioner’s application. It has been held in Roebling v. Anderson, 103 U.S.App.D.C. 237, 257 F.2d 615 (1958), that a motion to produce certain files was proper — even though a file category referred to as “legal” actually did not exist as one independent file, but consisted of documents scattered through several other files. Cf. United States v. Gates, 35 F.R.D. 524 (D.C.Colo.1964). Hence the designation of a specific file is not “so broad and sweeping in scope” as the demand for production considered in the Dean case.'
The effect of the majority holding is that the trial court either exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion in granting the motion to produce the particularly specified file of the Commission. There is nothing in the trial court record to indicate that the Commission or the court were not informed of the object which was requested to be produced. If the Commission objected on the grounds that the file contained matters of privilege, it does not appear in the record. Nor does it appear anywhere in the record whether the file contained “public records” or records which were those of a “private person”. It may be that this evidence was presented to the trial court— it may be that it was not. On the record, we can only guess or speculate, and have no basis for determining whether the trial judge either considered or failed to consider such objections.
The majority opinion also makes sweeping assertions as to what records in the Industrial Commission’s files may be open to public inspection. Again, since nothing factual was presented to the court regarding the contents of this particular file, or of any claimant’s file, I feel this court has gone beyond the record into the field of surmise and speculation to reach its conclusions. Doubtless, guide-lines for the trial courts in passing upon discovery procedures are important, but I believe they should be laid down only when this court has before it a sufficient record from the trial court upon which to base its legal conclusions, and to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion or exceeded its jurisdiction.