Tobacco Road, Inc. v. Callaghan, 70222

• Decision Date: 10 April 1985
• Docket Number: No. 70222,70222
• Citation: 330 S.E.2d 768,174 Ga.App. 539
• Parties: TOBACCO ROAD, INC. v. CALLAGHAN.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 768

330 S.E.2d 768

174 Ga.App. 539

TOBACCO ROAD, INC. v. CALLAGHAN.

No. 70222.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

April 10, 1985.

William H. Turner, Jr., F. Thomas Young, Valdosta, for appellant.

O. Wayne Ellerbee, E. Cameron Hickman, Valdosta, for appellee.

BANKE, Chief Judge.

The appellant brings this interlocutory appeal from an order requiring the production of statements obtained from certain witnesses by an investigator in his employ. The trial court determined that the statements had been obtained in anticipation of litigation within the meaning of OCGA § 9-11-26. However, in reliance upon this court's decision in Clarkson Indus. v. Price, 135 Ga.App. 787, 218 S.E.2d 921 (1975), the court ruled that the statements were discoverable without a showing of substantial need and undue hardship in obtaining the equivalent materials, because of the appellant's failure to demonstrate that the statements contained mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of the preparer. We granted the appellant's application for interlocutory appeal in order to resolve an apparent conflict between the Clarkson decision and the decision in Warmack v. Mini-Skools 164 Ga.App. 737, 297 S.E.2d 365 (1982). Held:

1. OCGA § 9-11-26(b)(3) clearly states that discovery of the type statements at issue here may be obtained "only upon a showing that the party seeking discovery has substantial need of the materials in the preparation of his case and that he is unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means. In ordering discovery of such materials when the required showing has been made, the court shall protect against disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of an attorney or other representative of a party concerning the litigation ..."

As we stated in Ga. Intl. Life Ins. Co. v. Boney, 139 Ga.App. 575(3), 228 S.E.2d 731 (1976), "it is obvious that documents, statements, and other tangible items of evidence developed by one party in preparation for litigation are discoverable by the other party only in carefully limited circumstances. The moving party must show affirmatively that he has a substantial need for such evidence in the preparation of his case and that it would cause an undue hardship upon him to develop that evidence by means other than extraction from the files of the opposing party. If the trial court is satisfied that the required showing has been made, the trial court may order the production, after an in-camera examination (or other acceptable agreement between the parties) with a view toward protecting against the disclosure of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories." This is the correct rule, as was reaffirmed in Warmack v. Mini-Skools, supra. Insofar as Clarkson Indus., supra, is inconsistent with this rule, it is overruled; and the trial court's order requiring the production of the requested materials is accordingly reversed.

Judgment reversed.

McMURRAY and BIRDSONG, P.JJ., and CARLEY, SOGNIER, POPE, BENHAM and BEASLEY, JJ., concur.

DEEN, P.J., concurs and also concurs specially.

DEEN, Presiding Judge, concurring specially.

While concurring fully with the majority opinion, as the author of the decision...