Krause v. Rhodes

• Decision Date: 20 February 1975
• Docket Number: Civ. No. C 70-544.
• Citation: 390 F. Supp. 1072
• Parties: Arthur KRAUSE, et al., Plaintiff, v. James A. RHODES et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio

390 F. Supp. 1072

Arthur KRAUSE, et al., Plaintiff, v. James A. RHODES et al., Defendants.

Civ. No. C 70-544.

United States District Court, N. D. Ohio, W. D.

February 20, 1975.

Clyde Ellis, Columbus, Ohio, Nelson G. Karl, Steven A. Sindell, David E. Engdahl, Cleveland, Ohio, for plaintiff.

R. Brooke Alloway, Charles E. Brown, Columbus, Ohio, Burt J. Fulton, Cleveland, Ohio, James A. Laurenson, Columbus, Ohio, for defendants.

MEMORANDUM

DON J. YOUNG, District Judge.

The defendants have filed a motion for a protective order preventing the deposition of the custodians of the records of the Ohio National Guard and the Ohio State Highway Patrol, and also to quash a subpoena duces tecum served upon the Clerk of the Court of Common Pleas of Portage County, Ohio requiring production of documents related to the Grand Jury inquiry into the matters giving rise to these actions.

The defendants' claims are that the documents of the Ohio National Guard and the Ohio State Highway Patrol were prepared in anticipation of litigation, and are protected from disclosure in the absence of a showing of good cause. Also, that the documents qualify as work product of the defendants' attorneys, and as such are protected from discovery. With respect to the Grand Jury matter, defendants' claim that the materials are privileged under the ancient rule of secrecy of grand jury proceedings.

The plaintiffs dispute all of the defendants' claim alleging that the materials sought from the National Guard and State Highway were neither prepared in anticipation of litigation nor as work product of the defendants' attorneys, and that the Grand Jury secrecy pertains to the proceedings, and not to documents which were laid before it.

At the outset, it ought to be understood that this Court is a firm adherent to the concept of "open file" discovery. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are based upon the idea that a trial is a search for truth, not a game or a battle of wits. Some four decades of practical experience have convinced this Court that the need for trial frequently disappears once both sides have a full and complete understanding of the facts.

Without entertaining any hope of that occurring in this case, still it must be recognized that the present case is one of tremendous complexity both of fact and law. In the heavy fog of emotion which engulfs it, seeing objectively what really happened will be difficult at best. No scrap of information available to anyone involved should be held back until the time of trial. The sooner both sides are in complete possession of all available information, the greater will be the chances for an ultimate just resolution of the issues. It is already far later than it should be to conduct discovery, for time has dimmed memories, reworked ideas, and hardened attitudes. Long periods of time almost always result in conscious or...