Muder v. Bentley
| Decision Date | 29 May 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 5711,5711 |
| Parties | Fred E. MUDER v. John J. BENTLEY. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Shaw & Eldredge, (Carleton Eldredge, Exeter, orally), for plaintiff.
Calderwood, Silverman & Ouellette, Dover, and William B. Cullimore, Concord, for defendant.
The plaintiff excepted to the order of the Trial Court granting the defendant's motion for discovery of the transcript of testimony of witnesses at a hearing before the Newmarket Municipal Court in the case of State v. Muder. Plaintiff's exception reserved and transferred by Morris, J.
Plaintiff in the present civil action seeks damages of injuries sustained in a two-car collision in which defendant's wife was killed. A criminal charge was brought against the plaintiff as a result of the accident and hearing was held before the Newmarket Municipal Court to determine whether there was probable cause to bind him over to the grand jury. The hearing, held on July 1, 1966, resulted in a dismissal of the charge at the close of the evidence. A stenographer, employed by the plaintiff herein, made a record of the testimony at this probable cause hearing in the Newmarket Municipal Court.
On June 22, 1967 the defendant by motion for discovery sought a transcript of that record. The Superior Court, after hearing, ordered the plaintiff to furnish a copy at the defendant's expense. No transcript of the hearing on this motion is available. Plaintiff's counsel excepted to this order as an abuse of the court's discretion and it is this exception that is before us. While appeal was pending in this Court a supplementary hearing on the motion was held at the request of counsel for the plaintiff who represent the insurance company defending the plaintiff in actions brought by the defendant arising out of the same accident. A transcript of that hearing has been furnished subsequent to the oral arguments on the case.
Plaintiff argues first that the stenographic record of the municipal court hearing was exempt from discovery as a matter of law, being work product of counsel. Classification of material as work product does not bar discovery in all cases, and if 'relevant facts are unobtainable by other means, or are obtainable only under such conditions of hardship as would tend unfairly to prejudice the party seeking discovery, disclosure of work product may be compelled.' Riddle Spring Realty Co. v. State, 107 N.H. 271, 275, 220 A.2d 751, 756; Therrien v. New England Tel. & Tel. Company, 99 N.H. 197, 200, 108 A.2d 48.
In the instant case, however, the transcript sought does not fall within the definition of work product. It cannot be said to be an 'impertinent intrusion in (the parties') legitimately private matters' (Riddle Spring Realty v. State, supra, 107 N.H. 278, 220 A.2d 758) where it is an account of what took place...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Vickers v. Vickers, 5710
-
Wheeler v. Cain
...paid all of her fee at the time of the hearing. Attorney for appellant, Sara Cain, cites and relies upon the cases of Muder v. Bentley (1968), 109 N.H. 71, 242 A.2d 396; Dougherty v. Gellenthin, (1968), 99 N.J.Super. 283, 239 A.2d 280. These two cases held that the stenographic transcript o......
-
State v. Schena
...N.H. 228, 231, 248 A.2d 88. The meagre record in the case demonstrates no abuse of discretion by the Trial Court. See Muder v. Bentley, 109 N.H. 71, 73, 242 A.2d 396; Timmins v. Brennan, 103 N.H. 459, 460, 174 A.2d Exceptions overruled. All concurred. ...
-
State v. Duhamel
...privilege. Although "[c]lassification of material as work product does not bar discovery in all cases," Muder v. Bentley, 109 N.H. 71, 72, 242 A.2d 396, 397 (1968), the exceptions to the rule are narrow. Here, there has been no waiver of the privilege by the prosecution, see United States v......