work product doctrine federal rules

The work product doctrine now memorialized in both the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Florida Rules of Civil Procedure has its foundation in the US. Attorney work product privilege permits attorneys to withhold from production documents and other tangible things prepared in anticipation of litigation by or for another party or its representative.

THE WORK PRODUCT DOc INE AND RULE 26b3 A.

. That controversy can be fairly described as a conflict both of emotion and of basic philosophy. No interpretation or construction seems necessary Vir-ginia Elec. Hickman and Rule 26b3 Modern analyses of work product issues generally focus on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26b3 or its state counterparts but the doctrine antedates these.

Taylor when tracing the roots of the attorney work prod-uct privilege doctrine1 It was decided in 1947 two decades before the doctrine was codified in the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26b32 In Hickman a tug-. A party may obtain discovery of documents and tangible things otherwise discoverable under subdivision b1 of this rule and. The list is open-ended.

The work product doctrine codified in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 26b3 protects those docu- ments prepared in anticipation of litigation from discovery by an adversary in order to protect the mental impressions and litigation strategy retained by a partys attorney. The work product doctrine protects documents and tangible things prepared in anticipation of litigation by a partys attorney or representative. As presently codified in the Federal Civil Rules the work product immunity doctrine is broader in scope than the attorney-client privilege.

Taylor 329 US. Supreme Courts decision in Hickman v. In American civil procedure the work-product doctrine protects materials prepared in anticipation of litigation from discovery by opposing counsel.

The question then is whether this material is. The work-product doctrine in a criminal case is very different. Mo tor s Co rp 2 09 F3 d 1 05 1 10 53 8 th Cir.

THE WORK PRODUCT DOCTRINE IN THE STATE COURTS When the modem Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were adopted in 1938 considerable doubt and controversy arose concerning the broad pro visions for deposition and discovery. Sun Shipbuilding Dry Dock Co 68 FRD. Supreme Court in the leading case of Hickman v.

Work Product Doctrine I. Ba ker v. 385 1947 in which the US.

Rule 26b3 no longer limits work product protection to materials prepared by an attorney but extends to materials prepared by a party or a partys representative and provides an inclusive list of those whose work will be protected attorney consultant surety indemnitor insurer or agent. Fedetal Rule of Civil Procedure 26b3 provides. 495 1947 prevents discovery of.

This might include for example. A party may obtain its adversarys fact work product by showing that it has a substantial need. 495 1947 is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court recognized the work-product doctrine which holds that information obtained or produced by or for attorneys in anticipation of litigation may be protected from discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

In contrast the work product doctrine is not so much a privilege as it is an exemption for material prepared by or for the attorney of a party in anticipation of litigation 64 The purpose of the work product doctrine is to protect the attorneys privacy during preparation for trial. Rule 502 Waivers of. The Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure are modeled after their federal counterparts and share much of the same language.

Ordinarily a party may not discover documents and tangible things that areprepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or its representative including the other partys attorney consultant surety. May-June 1995 at 12. -- The work-product doctrine is a procedural rule of federal law governed by Rule 26b3 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The work product doctrine which protects trial preparation mate-rials from discovery is a doctrine of uncertain dimensionI The scope of protection the doctrine provides these materials is one of the most con-troversial and vexing problems in the Federal Rules of Civil Proce-dure2 Despite guidance provided by hickman v. Supreme Court held that statements of witnesses obtained by an attorney prior to trial were privileged and thus protected from discoveryThe Court reasoned that to allow otherwise would be contrary to the public policy underlying the orderly. The work product doctrine a discovery rule recognized by the US.

Both contain provisions codifying the attorney work-product doctrine and. The work-product doctrine protects documents that are prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or by or for that other partys representative. FOUNDATION OF WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGE The leading case involves the Supreme Court decision of Hickman v.

65 it is a qualified exemption that must yield in the face of necessity 66 Work product receives conditional. The doctrine is recognized however in many jurisdictions and by the Restatement Third of the Law Governing Lawyers in 76 2000. Documents that convey the mental impressions.

The provisions of Rule 26b3 are straightforward and easily un-derstood. The Courts decision in the case was unanimous. 26b3A makes it clear that documents produced by non- attorneys may also enjoy work product privilege.

The work-product doctrine is a judicially created doctrine now codified in Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 26b5. It is also known as the work-product rule the work-product immunity the work-product exception and the work-product privilege though there is debate about whether it is truly a privilege This doctrine does not apply in other countries. A Documents and Tangible Things.

As with attorney-client privilege work product privilege does not protect underlying facts. The work-product privilege or doctrine 1 originated in the seminal case of Hickman v. Thus in all c ases including those over which the cour t is exercising diversity jurisdiction the court applies federal law to resolve work product issues.

The doctrine was later memorialized in the federal rules of civil procedure and most states including Alabama adopted a similar rule. First Rule 16b2 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides an absolute bar to the post indictment discovery of a defense attorneys work product which no showing of substantial need may overcome. The work-product doctrine operates not as aprivilege that belongs to any party but rather as a protection for the adversary systetr.