Duplan Corp. v. MOULINAGE ET RETORDERIE, 73-1618.
Decision Date | 23 October 1973 |
Docket Number | No. 73-1618.,73-1618. |
Citation | 487 F.2d 480 |
Parties | The DUPLAN CORPORATION, Appellee, v. MOULINAGE et RETORDERIE de CHAVANOZ, Appellant, Deering Milliken, Inc., et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Jay Greenfield, New York City (Butler, Means, Evins & Browne, Spartanburg, S. C., Paul, Weiss, Rifkin, Wharton & Garrison, Morgan, Finnegan, Durham & Pine, Simon H. Rifkind, New York City, Thomas A. Evins, Spartanburg, S. C., and Robert S. Smith, New York City, on brief), for appellant.
Fletcher C. Mann and O. G. Calhoun, Jr., Greenville, S. C. (Allan Trumbull on brief), for appellee.
Before BRYAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and FIELD and WIDENER, Circuit Judges.
We entertained this appeal upon the narrow question whether upon the termination of litigation the work product documents prepared incident thereto lose the qualified immunity extended to them under Rule 26(b)(3), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,1 and become freely discoverable in subsequent and unrelated litigation.
In this multidistrict patent-antitrust proceeding, resolution of this question is of vital importance with respect both to depositions and requests for production of documents.2 The district judge initially concluded "that once the privilege attaches it remains regardless of the litigation in which discovery is sought." However, in the course of the extensive discovery proceedings he reconsidered his position and concluded "that (1) when a case in litigation is finally terminated; (2) by either a decision of the court or by settlement among the parties; (3) the work product privilege is also terminated; and (4) the work product of attorneys in the prior litigation is therefore subject to discovery in subsequent litigation." Recognizing the importance of his ruling the district judge certified his order for interlocutory consideration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and we granted the appeal. We disagree with the conclusion of the district judge and reverse.
From the time the Federal Rules were first adopted one of the most litigated questions relative to the scope of discovery has been the extent to which a party may obtain disclosure and inspection of the documents and information developed during the course of an opponent's preparation for trial. As a result of the flood of inconsistent decisions in this area, in June of 1946 the Advisory Committee on Rules proposed an amendment to Rule 30(b).3 The Supreme Court did not adopt the proposed amendment but dealt with the problem in the landmark case of Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947). In Hickman the Court recognized a qualified immunity for what it characterized as the "work product of the lawyer" and held that it was discoverable only upon a substantial showing of "necessity or justification."4 Unfortunately, in the succeeding years the courts failed to apply the principles of Hickman in a definitive or uniform manner, and one court went so far as to state that the decision had opened a veritable "Pandora's box."5
With the decisions of the district courts going off in different directions, the Advisory Committee once again turned its attention to the troublesome subject of work product. In a preliminary draft in 1967, the Committee suggested a new Rule 26(b)(3) defining work product and allowing discovery thereof "only upon a showing of good cause therefor."6 The proposal was roundly criticized especially by those who felt that the test of "good cause" would not provide sufficient protection for work product material, and it was suggested that the "badly tarnished good cause test of Rule 34" would lower the barrier set in Hickman. See Freund, Work Product, 1968, 45 F.R.D. 493, 495. Responsive to this widespread criticism the proposal was altered and finally cast in the form in which it was adopted by the Supreme Court in 1970. It is generally conceded that the new Rule reflects the rationale of Hickman, and Professor Wright characterizes it as "an accurate codification of the doctrine announced in the Hickman case * * *."7
There is, of course, nothing in the Rule itself that suggests a specific answer to the question before us, nor is there any indication in the Advisory Committee Note to Rule 26(b)(3) that the Committee gave any particular thought to this problem.8 However, since the Rule tracks Hickman the answer must, primarily, be gleaned from that decision.
The theme of Hickman is succinctly stated in Mr. Justice Murphy's prefatory statement:
329 U.S. at 497, 67 S.Ct. 385, at 387, 91 L.Ed. 451.
And disapproval of carte blanche incursions is manifest in the now classic statement:
329 U.S. at 511, 67 S.Ct. 385, at 393, 91 L.Ed. 451.
Hickman clearly stands for the principle that the integrity of the adversary process must be safeguarded in spite of the desirability of the free interchange of information before trial. Its overriding concern is that the lawyer's morale be protected as he performs his professional functions in planning litigation and preparing his case. This work product immunity is the embodiment of a policy that a lawyer doing a lawyer's work in preparation of a case for trial should not be hampered by the knowledge that he might be called upon at any time to hand over the result of his work to an opponent.9 The concern of the Court for the integrity of the practicing bar was made crystal clear in the trenchant concurrence of Mr. Justice Jackson when he stated that "the primary effect of the practice advocated here would be on the legal profession itself,"10 and "the real purpose and the probable effect of the practice ordered by the district court would be to put trials on a level even lower than a `battle of wits'."11 Mr. Justice Jackson then proceeded to point out the practical and undesirable professional consequences that could result from such a broad concept of the discovery process.
While, of course, the Court in Hickman was addressing itself to material obtained by an attorney incident to the litigation then in progress, the rationale is scarcely less applicable to a case which has been closed than to one which is still being contested. The decision was not in any manner based upon the rights or posture of the litigants vis-a-vis each other.12 Such a basis was expressly disavowed.13 Rather, the thrust of the decision was the qualified protection of the professional effort, confidentiality and activity of an attorney which transcends the rights of the litigants. This concern was reiterated in the final words of the Hickman opinion:
329 U. S. at 514, 67 S.Ct. 385, 395, 91 L.Ed. 451.
This is strong judicial language and we find no indication that the Court intended to confine the protection of the work product to the litigation in which it was prepared or to make it freely discoverable in a subsequent law suit.14 To so interpret Hickman would in our opinion elide the broad rationale of the Court's decision. Assuredly, the intrusion upon the attorney and the possibility of the demeaning professional consequences envisioned by Mr. Justice Jackson are just as objectionable in one case as the other. We are well aware of the divergent conclusions reached in similar cases15 but in all deference we think that those courts which permitted unqualified disclosure misread the basic teaching of Hickman.
On balance, we think the legal profession and the interests of the public are better served by recognizing the qualified immunity of work product materials in a subsequent case as well as that in which they were prepared, and this in our opinion comports with the statement in Hickman:
329 U.S. at 512, 67 S.Ct. 385, at 394, 91 L.Ed. 451.
Our decision will not in any way frustrate the ends of justice. If the party seeking discovery can demonstrate the substantial...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bethune-Hill v. Va. State Bd. of Elections
...of the work product doctrine extend beyond the litigation for which the materials were prepared. Duplan Corp. v. Moulinage et Retorderie de Chavanoz, 487 F.2d 480, 483 (4th Cir.1973) ("[W]e find no indication that the Court intended to confine the protection of the work product to the litig......
-
Leviton Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Shanghai Meihao Elec.
...information, and that it would be exceedingly difficult to obtain the information any other way."); Duplan Corp. v. Moulinage et Retorderie de Chavanoz, 487 F.2d 480, 484-85 (4th cir.1973) (recognizing that work product documents, in a patent case, enjoy qualified immunity and are discovera......
-
Duplan Corp. v. Deering Milliken, Inc.
...product immunity, production of documents generated during prior litigations now terminated. 7. The Duplan Corporation v. Moulinage et Retorderie de Chavanoz, 487 F.2d 480 (4th Cir. 1973). Field, J. (Bryan and Reverses district court's order granting free discovery of work product materials......
-
Harris v. Drake
...Grand Jury, 805 F.2d 155, 163 (6th Cir.1986) (privilege may be invoked by client or attorney); Duplan Corp. v. Moulinage et Retorderie de Chavanoz, 487 F.2d 480, 483 n. 12 (4th Cir.1973) (work product privilege is attorney's). 48. 135 Wash.2d 398, 957 P.2d 632, recons. denied, 966 P.2d 305 ......
-
Privileges
...prepared for prior litigation retains its protection in subsequent litigation); Duplan Corp. v. Moulinage et Retorderie de Chavanoz, 487 F.2d 480 (4th Cir. 1973) (work product documents prepared for litigation and granted qualified immunity do not lose the immunity and are not freely discov......
-
Table of Cases
...Duplan Corp. v. Deering Milliken, Inc., 397 F. Supp. 1146 (D.S.C. 1975), 88, 108, 115 Duplan Corp. v. Moulinage et Retorderie de Chavanoz, 487 F.2d 480 (4th Cir. 1973), 103 Duplan Corp. v. Moulinage et Retorderie de Chavanoz, 509 F.2d 730 (4th Cir. 1974), 107 Dynco Constr. Co. v. McWane, In......
-
Assessment of Foreign Law Restricting Discovery
...firm hired by plaintiff); see generally , Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947); Duplan Corp. v. Moulingeet Retorderie de Chavanoz, 487 F.2d 480 (4th Cir. 1983). 81 . E.g. , In re Urethane Antitrust Litig., 267 F.R.D. 361, 367 (D. Kan. 2010); but see , Pronova BioPharma Norge A.S. v. Teva ......