Oklahoma v. Tyson Foods, Inc.
262 F.R.D. 617, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106380, 2009 WL 3682757 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The attorney work-product doctrine shields documents prepared in anticipation of litigation from discovery, but it does not protect the underlying, non-privileged facts contained within those documents. A party must disclose such facts in response to interrogatories, even if the information is known only to its attorney.
Facts:
- The State of Oklahoma was engaged in litigation against Cargill, alleging pollution from poultry waste generated by Cargill's contract growers in the Illinois River Watershed (IRW).
- To prepare for litigation, Cargill's attorneys interviewed contract growers about their poultry waste disposal practices.
- Cargill's attorneys compiled the information they gathered into two documents: a 'Grower Summary' and an 'Applications Chart'.
- These documents contained specific factual details, including grower names, farm locations, the amount of poultry waste generated, and details on whether, how much, and when the waste was applied to land.
- Since at least 2005, this factual information was in the possession of Cargill's attorneys.
- Oklahoma sought this type of factual information from Cargill through formal discovery questions known as interrogatories.
- In response to Oklahoma's interrogatories, Cargill repeatedly stated that it had 'no information' regarding the litter disposal practices of its independent contract growers.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Oklahoma sued the Cargill Defendants in federal court.
- Oklahoma served Interrogatory Request No. 6 on Cargill, seeking information about poultry waste disposal.
- Cargill responded to the interrogatory, and later a supplemental request, by stating it had 'no information regarding the amounts of litter used by its independent contract growers.'
- During a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, Cargill's corporate designee testified that Cargill does not track poultry litter on its contract producers' farms.
- The court later ordered Cargill to produce materials that had been considered by its consulting expert, Dr. Ginn, whom Cargill had converted to a testifying expert.
- Through this order, Oklahoma received the 'Grower Summary' and 'Applications Chart,' revealing that Cargill's attorneys possessed the information Cargill had denied having.
- Upon discovering this, Oklahoma filed a Motion for Sanctions against Cargill for discovery misconduct, which is the subject of this opinion.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a party's failure to disclose relevant, non-privileged facts in response to an interrogatory violate discovery rules under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(e) and 26(g), when those facts are contained within documents protected by the attorney work-product doctrine and are known to the party's counsel?
Opinions:
Majority - Paul J. Cleary
Yes, a party's failure to disclose such facts violates discovery rules. While the documents themselves ('Grower Summary' and 'Applications Chart') were protected as attorney work-product, the underlying facts contained within them were not. The court's reasoning distinguished between the protection afforded to an attorney's mental impressions and trial strategy, and the discoverability of raw factual data. Citing Hickman v. Taylor, the court affirmed that the work-product doctrine does not create a shield against discovering facts. A party has a duty to provide all information 'available' to it, which includes knowledge held by its agents, such as its attorneys. Cargill's response that it had 'no information' was incorrect because its attorneys possessed the requested facts. Therefore, Cargill violated Rule 26(e) by providing an incomplete and incorrect response and failing to supplement it, and its attorneys violated Rule 26(g) by certifying that incorrect response.
Analysis:
This decision serves as a crucial clarification on the limits of the attorney work-product doctrine in modern discovery. It reinforces that the doctrine is not a tool for concealing discoverable facts but for protecting an attorney's strategic thoughts and mental impressions. The ruling emphasizes that corporations and their counsel cannot feign ignorance of facts that are known to the attorney, thereby preventing parties from using their legal team as an informational black box. The mandatory imposition of sanctions under Rule 26(g) underscores the seriousness of an attorney's certification on discovery responses and acts as a deterrent against evasive or misleading litigation tactics.
