Beverage Marketing Corp. v. Ogilvy & Mather
Decision Date | 18 February 1983 |
Docket Number | No. 80 Civ. 3318 (RWS).,80 Civ. 3318 (RWS). |
Parties | BEVERAGE MARKETING CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. OGILVY & MATHER DIRECT RESPONSE, INC., Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Baker, Nelson & Williams, New York City, for plaintiff by John P. Dellera, New York City, of counsel.
Davis & Gilbert, New York City, for defendant by Miles Baum, New York City, of counsel.
Plaintiff Beverage Marketing Corporation ("Marketing") has sued defendant Ogilvy & Mather Direct Response, Inc. ("Ogilvy") claiming breach of contract and malpractice allegedly committed during the performance of an agreement for direct mail marketing services. Marketing has now moved pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(4)(A)(ii) for an order compelling Ogilvy to produce a report prepared by one of Ogilvy's experts. The motion is granted.
Discovery of expert materials is governed by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(4), which reads, in relevant part:
Both parties indicate that expert testimony will be the central focus of the trial and have retained experts. Ogilvy has previously sought, and obtained, an order compelling Marketing to produce its expert's reports. Marketing thereafter followed the procedure of Rule 26(b)(4) by first serving Ogilvy with a set of interrogatories. Ogilvy responded to an interrogatory asking for the subject matter and substance of the testimony to be offered at trial by its experts as follows:
Defendant's experts are expected to give testimony at the trial of this action concerning an analysis and evaluation of the reports and testimony of plaintiff's expert witness. They also will give testimony refuting the theories and calculations espoused by plaintiff's expert witness in support of its damage calculations and to show that there is no basis statistically or otherwise, for his conclusions.
Following the receipt of this response, Marketing served Ogilvy with a document request seeking, inter alia, reports prepared by Ogilvy's experts. Ogilvy responded by objecting to such production on the ground of attorney work-product privilege and has submitted the report for an in camera review.
As a preliminary matter, Ogilvy's claim that the expert report is protected by the work product privilege has no merit in these circumstances. Rule 26(b)(3), which governs the privilege in federal court, is expressly "subject to the provisions of subdivision (b)(4)," quoted supra. The weight of authority is to the effect that the work product rule does not apply to experts who are expected to testify. In re IBM Antitrust Litigation, 77 F.R.D. 39, 41, 42 (N.D.Cal.1977); Quadrini v. Sikorsky Aircraft Div., United Aircraft Corp., 74 F.R.D. 594, 595 n. 1 (D.Conn.1977). See also Fed.R. Civ.P. 26 advisory committee note ("ill-considered") decisions that have sought to bring expert information within the work product doctrine as ; 8 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2029 at 243 (1970).
Ogilvy's attempts to argue the contrary are unavailing. For example, Ogilvy states that the court in In re IBM Antitrust Litigation, supra, 77 F.R.D. at 42 "commented that an expert might in some circumstances be considered a consultant to an attorney and thus be covered by the work product doctrine." The court in that case was addressing the question whether the author of a report, who was not going to testify at trial, was defined as an expert, and thus subject to the provisions of Rule 26(b)(4)(B), or as a consultant, thereby being subject to the work-product privilege. There was no suggestion that he would fit both categories.
Ogilvy states that the court in Fauteck v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 91 F.R.D. 393, 399 (N.D.Ill.1980), offered to review expert material in camera to guard against the unwarranted disclosure of legal theories. The material in question Fauteck, however, was not expert reports — it was the defendant's own personnel records reformulated in computer readable form at the direction and under the supervision of the defendant's attorneys. As such, it was subject to protection as work product. Furthermore, the court ordered disclosure of the material on a reciprocal basis between the parties.
In addition, Ogilvy states that "the attorney work product privilege extends to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Stephens v. Trust for Public Land
...discovery. B.C.F. Oil Refining, Inc. v. Consolidated Edison Co., 171 F.R.D. 57, 62 (S.D.N.Y.1997). Compare Beverage Marketing v. Ogilvy & Mather, 563 F.Supp. 1013 (S.D.N.Y.1983) (requiring disclosure of "analysis of [plaintiffs expert] report" produced by testifying expert), with Detwiler T......
-
Yeda Research & Dev. Co. v. Abbott Gmbh & Co. KG
...(S.D.N.Y. 1997); Grace A. Detwiler Trust v. Offenbecher, 124 F.R.D. 545, 546 (s.D.N.Y. 1989); Beverage Mktg. Corp. v. Ogilvy & Mather Direct Response, Inc., 563 F. Supp. 1013, 1015 (S.D.N.Y. 1983); see also Messier v. Southbury Training Sch., No. 3:94-CV-1706, 1998 WL 422858, at *1-2 (D. Co......
-
Backiel v. Sinai Hospital of Detroit
...its citation to federal cases decided pursuant to the very similar wording of F.R.Civ.P. 26(b). Beverage Marketing Corp. v. Ogilvy & Mather Direct Response, Inc., 563 F.Supp. 1013 (S.D.N.Y.1983); Heitmann v. Concrete Pipe Machinery, 98 F.R.D. 740 (E.D.Mo.1983); In re IBM Peripheral EDP Devi......
-
Mims v. Casademont
...the report of an expert retained to testify is not protected by the work product privilege. See Beverage Marketing Corp. v. Ogilvy & Mather Direct Response, Inc., 563 F.Supp. 1013 (S.D.N.Y.1983); see also In Re IBM Peripheral EDP Devices Antitrust Litigation, 77 F.R.D. 39 (N.D.Cal.1977); Qu......
-
Attacking the Opposing Expert
...retrieval companies use the internet to transmit the documents. CASES Beverage Marketing Corp. v. Ogilvy & Mather Direct Response, Inc., 563 F.Supp. 1013, 1014 (S.D. N.Y. 1983), was a breach of contract and malpractice action in which the court held that the report of the expert expected to......
-
Table of Cases
...Dixie Homecrafters, Inc., 192 F.R.D. 320, 322 (N.D. Ga. 2000), §613 Beverage Marketing Corp. v. Ogilvy & Mather Direct Response, Inc., 563 F.Supp. 1013, 1014 (S.D. N.Y. 1983), §413 Biakania v. Irving (1958) 49 Cal.2d 647, 650, 320 P.2d 161, §532 Biddle v. Warren Gen. Hosp ., 86 Ohio St. 395......
-
Attacking the Opposing Expert
...retrieval companies use the internet to transmit the documents. CASES Beverage Marketing Corp. v. Ogilvy & Mather Direct Response, Inc., 563 F.Supp. 1013, 1014 (S.D. N.Y. 1983), was a breach of contract and malpractice action in which the court held that the report of the expert expected to......
-
Attacking the Opposing Expert
...retrieval companies use the internet to transmit the documents. Cases Beverage Marketing Corp. v. Ogilvy & Mather Direct Response, Inc., 563 F.Supp. 1013, 1014 (S.D. N.Y. 1983), was a breach of contract and malpractice action in which the court held that the report of the expert expected to......