Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court
364 P.2d 266, 56 Cal. 2d 355, 15 Cal. Rptr. 90 (1961)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
California's civil discovery statutes are to be construed liberally in favor of disclosure unless a request is clearly improper. Statements of independent, non-party witnesses collected by a party's agents in anticipation of litigation are not protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine and are therefore discoverable upon a showing of good cause.
Facts:
- Earline Z. Clay and Leslie Randolph Clay were injured in an accident involving their vehicle and a bus operated by Greyhound Corp. on an interstate highway.
- While the Clays were injured at the scene, investigators and adjusters employed by Greyhound arrived and began an investigation.
- Greyhound's investigators obtained written and signed statements from various independent witnesses, including bus passengers and other motorists.
- The investigators then went to the hospital where the Clays had been taken and obtained statements from them.
- The Clays did not retain legal counsel until the day following the accident.
- The Clays' attorney subsequently attempted to locate the witnesses by hiring a detective and placing a newspaper advertisement, but these efforts were unsuccessful.
Procedural Posture:
- Earline Z. Clay and Leslie Randolph Clay sued Greyhound Corp. in a California superior court (the court of first instance) for personal injuries.
- The Clays filed a motion to compel Greyhound to produce for inspection the written statements of all witnesses to the accident.
- The superior court granted the Clays' motion.
- Greyhound Corp., as petitioner, sought an alternative writ of prohibition from the California Supreme Court to prevent the enforcement of the superior court's discovery order.
- The California Supreme Court, as the highest court, granted the alternative writ to review the discovery order.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do written statements of independent witnesses, taken by a defendant's investigators before litigation is filed for the purpose of defending against potential claims, fall under the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine, thereby protecting them from discovery?
Opinions:
Majority - Peters, J.
No. The written statements of independent witnesses are not protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine and are therefore discoverable. The court held that California's discovery statutes must be liberally construed in favor of disclosure to eliminate the “game” element from trial preparation. The attorney-client privilege, which must be strictly construed, only protects confidential communications between a client and their attorney; it does not extend to statements made by independent witnesses who are not clients, and transmitting these non-privileged statements to an attorney does not retroactively make them privileged. The court also declined to adopt the federal 'work product' doctrine as a privilege in California, reasoning that privilege is created by statute and should not be expanded by judicial fiat. Instead, the statutory power of trial courts to prevent abuse, injustice, or undue burden is the proper mechanism for protecting against an attorney's impressions and theories or unfair 'free-riding' on an opponent's work.
Analysis:
This landmark decision established the guiding principle of liberal construction for California's then-new discovery statutes, fundamentally shaping civil litigation practice in the state. By narrowly interpreting the attorney-client privilege and rejecting the federal 'work product' doctrine as an absolute privilege, the court significantly broadened the scope of discoverable materials. The ruling ensures that critical factual information, such as contemporaneous witness statements, is available to all parties, thereby reducing trial by surprise and encouraging settlements based on a fuller understanding of the facts. This holding compelled corporate defendants and insurers to assume that most pre-litigation investigation materials, apart from an attorney's mental impressions, would be discoverable.
