Hickman v. Taylor
329 U.S. 495 (1947)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An adverse party's counsel's materials prepared in anticipation of litigation, known as work product, are not discoverable as of right. The party seeking discovery must demonstrate a substantial need for the materials and an inability to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means without undue hardship.
Facts:
- On February 7, 1943, the tugboat 'J. M. Taylor' sank while towing a railroad car float across the Delaware River, and five of the nine crew members drowned.
- Three days later, the tug owners hired attorney Fortenbaugh to defend them against potential lawsuits from the deceased crew members' representatives and to pursue a claim against the railroad.
- A public hearing was conducted by the U.S. Steamboat Inspectors where the four surviving crew members testified, and this testimony was made publicly available.
- Shortly after the public hearing, Fortenbaugh privately interviewed the four survivors and obtained signed written statements from them in anticipation of litigation.
- Fortenbaugh also interviewed other individuals with information about the accident and, in some cases, created his own private memoranda summarizing these oral conversations.
- Representatives for four of the five deceased crew members settled their claims without litigation.
- The representative for the fifth deceased crew member, Hickman, brought a lawsuit against the tug owners.
Procedural Posture:
- Hickman, representing a deceased crew member, sued the tug owners and the railroad in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
- During discovery, Hickman served interrogatories on the tug owners, with Interrogatory No. 38 demanding exact copies of all written witness statements and detailed summaries of any oral statements.
- The tug owners' attorney, Fortenbaugh, refused to produce the requested materials, asserting they were 'privileged matter obtained in preparation for litigation.'
- The District Court ordered Fortenbaugh and the tug owners to produce the materials.
- Upon their continued refusal, the District Court held both Fortenbaugh and the tug owners in contempt of court and ordered them imprisoned until they complied.
- Fortenbaugh and the tug owners (appellants) appealed the contempt order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
- The Third Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, reversed the District Court, holding that the materials were privileged as the 'work product of the lawyer.'
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the conflict among lower courts on this issue.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Are written and oral statements of witnesses, secured by an adverse party's counsel in the course of preparation for possible litigation, discoverable as of right under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Murphy
No. Materials prepared by an attorney in anticipation of litigation are not subject to discovery on mere demand. While these materials are not protected by the traditional attorney-client privilege, which only covers communications from the client, they are shielded by a qualified immunity as the 'work product of the lawyer.' Public policy requires that a lawyer be able to prepare for a case with a degree of privacy, free from unnecessary intrusion by opposing counsel. Forcing disclosure of an attorney's files, mental impressions, and legal theories would be demoralizing to the legal profession, promote inefficiency and unfairness, and ultimately disserve the interests of clients and justice. However, this protection is not absolute for written materials; a party may obtain discovery by making a showing of necessity, such as the unavailability of witnesses, or that denial of production would cause hardship or injustice. The protection for an attorney's mental impressions and recollections of oral statements is even stronger, and no showing of necessity was made here that could overcome it.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Jackson
No. The practice of requiring a lawyer to produce written accounts of what witnesses have told him is demoralizing to the legal profession and the adversarial system. Discovery was intended to provide access to evidence, not to allow one lawyer to perform his functions on 'wits borrowed from the adversary.' Forcing a lawyer to memorialize and turn over oral witness statements would inevitably lead to that lawyer becoming a witness in the case to impeach or defend the witness's testimony, creating an 'unseemly disagreement' between the witness and counsel. This practice would degrade the trial from a 'battle of wits' to an even lower level. While signed written statements might be discoverable upon a showing of 'good cause' under Rule 34, no such showing was made in this case; the demand was made as a matter of right.
Analysis:
This landmark decision established the 'work-product doctrine' in federal civil procedure, creating a qualified immunity for materials prepared by an attorney in anticipation of litigation. It distinguishes this protection from the absolute attorney-client privilege, which protects confidential client communications. The ruling carves out a necessary zone of privacy for attorneys, balancing the liberal discovery policy of the Federal Rules with the practical realities of the adversarial system. By doing so, it ensures that lawyers can thoroughly prepare their cases—sifting facts, developing theories, and planning strategy—without the fear that their entire file will be subject to scrutiny by opposing counsel on mere demand.
Unlock the full brief for Hickman v. Taylor