Ex parte May
Decision Date | 30 January 1981 |
Parties | Ex parte Dr. Charles E. MAY and/or Wesley M. Foster, Jr., and/or Mutual Assurance Society of Alabama. (In re John A. MOORE, Jr., etc. et al. v. Dr. Charles E. MAY et al.) 80-26. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
James J. Duffy, Jr., and Carroll H. Sullivan of Inge, Twitty, Duffy & Prince, Mobile, and Edward P. Turner, Jr., Chatom, for petitioners.
Roscoe B. Hogan and James R. Pratt, III, of Hogan, Smith & Alspaugh, Birmingham and Joseph C. McCorquodale, III, of McCorquodale & McCorquodale, Jackson, for respondents.
Petition for writ of mandamus denied; order of this Court staying circuit court orders dated 9/8/80, 9/19/80, 10/3/80 and 10/8/80 dissolved; and order of this Court staying trial in Case No. CV. 78-265 in Clark County Circuit Court dissolved.
In denying the petition, we offer the following observations as guidance to the trial court:
There is no doubt that a party may discover any relevant matter which is not privileged. ARCP 26(b)(1). While a party's general right of discovery extends to materials his adverse party has prepared in anticipation of trial, that party may obtain such material only upon showing that he has substantial need of the materials and that he is unable without undue hardship to obtain their substantial equivalent. ARCP 26(b)(3). Upon the proper showing, the trial court may order revelation of the information sought, but the court must take care not to allow disclosure of the "work product" of the adverse party's attorney or other representative. Of course, the adverse party's "representative" may include his insurance adjuster. See Ex parte State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 386 So.2d 1133 (Ala.1980).
It is apparent that whether material is "work product" or "privileged" may not be left to the discretion of the party against whom discovery is sought. For this reason, the judge must ultimately decide whether the information or material sought is discoverable. If tangible material is sought, in camera examination of the material may be required. By this procedure, the party seeking discovery may obtain information he legitimately needs, while at the same time his adverse party's confidences and work product are preserved.
We hold that the conditional order of discovery here under review is an appropriate exercise of the trial court's discretion in the missing records context of this case. We believe the above-stated guidelines will assist the trial court in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Something Extra Publ'g, Inc. v. Mack
...in camera review of the information purported to be exempt from the ORA to determine whether the exception applies. See Ex parte May, 393 So. 2d 1006, 1007 (Ala. 1981) ("[T]he judge must ultimately decide whether the information or material sought is discoverable. If [work product or privil......
-
Something Extra Publ'g v. Mack
... ... Accordingly, whenever we use ... dictionaries to help us interpret statutes, it is critical to ... use dictionaries of the proper vintage to better understand ... the meaning of relevant terms at the time of their ... adoption." ... Ex parte Tutt Real Estate, LLC , [Ms. 1190963, Mar ... 26, 2021] __So. 3d__, __ (Ala. 2021) (Mitchell, J., ... concurring specially) ... One ... could argue that, considering the court-provided definition ... of the substance of what constitutes a "public ... ...
-
Vick v. Sawyer, 1041654.
...relevant and whether the information is such that it cannot be obtained from another source without undue hardship. See Ex parte May, 393 So.2d 1006, 1007 (Ala.1981) (holding that if tangible material is sought in discovery, in camera examination of the material may be required). The trial ......
-
Ex parte Bozeman
...(this court noting that impeachment, if raised, might have justified discovery); Ex parte Lord, 399 So.2d 290 (Ala.1981); Ex parte May, 393 So.2d 1006 (Ala.1981); Ex parte State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 386 So.2d 1133 (Ala.1980). Because plaintiffs did not make the required......