Willett v. General Elec. Co., 6616
| Court | Supreme Court of New Hampshire |
| Writing for the Court | KENISON |
| Citation | 113 N.H. 358,306 A.2d 789 |
| Parties | Reginald WILLETT et al. v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY et al. |
| Docket Number | No. 6616,6616 |
| Decision Date | 29 June 1973 |
Page 789
v.
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY et al.
Fisher, Parsons, Moran & Temple, Dover (Robert E. Fisher, Dover, orally), for plaintiffs.
Burns, Bryant, Hinchey, Cox & Shea and James F. Early, Dover (Mr. Early orally), for defendant General Electric Co.
Page 790
KENISON, Chief Justice.
The issue in this products liability case is whether the defendant General Electric Company may discover the reports of all plaintiffs' experts who examined the refrigerator which allegedly exploded, regardless of whether plaintiffs intend to use the reports at trial or whether they are favorable or unfavorable to plaintiffs' case. General Electric filed a motion for discovery in superior court requesting the court to permit the defendant to examine the refrigerator and to '(d)ecree that plaintiffs' attorney furnish your [113 N.H. 359] defendant with access to or copies of all reports and/or memoranda, past, present, and future, either in the possession of plaintiffs' attorney or the 'experts' used by the plaintiffs in examining said refrigerator.' The Court (Mullavey, J.) granted this motion, and the plaintiffs' exception thereto was transferred to this court.
Plaintiffs contend that they should not be compelled to release to the defendant the reports of every expert consulted because such reports represent the work product of plaintiffs' attorney and are thus beyond the reach of discovery. The position of the defendant in seeking discovery of the reports is that the condition of the refrigerator may have changed since the inspections of plaintiffs' experts and that all of their reports should thus be discoverable in order to 'contribute to the orderly dispatch of judicial business.' Riddle Spring Realty Co. v. State, 107 N.H. 271, 278, 220 A.2d 751, 753 (1966); RSA 491:App. R 60(e) (Supp.1972).
Recent decisions of this court have stressed the importance of broad pretrial discovery. E.g., Calderwood v. Calderwood, 112 N.H. 355, 296 A.2d 910 (1972); Scontsas v. Citizens Ins. Co., 109 N.H. 386, 253 A.2d 831 (1969); Riddle Spring Realty Co. v. State, supra; McDuffey v. Boston & Maine R.R., 102 N.H. 179, 152 A.2d 606 (1959). 'There are, however, competing policies which result in imposing some limits on discovery . . ..' James, Civil Procedure § 6.8, at 200 (1965). The scope of discovery is generally limited to relevant material that is 'not privileged.'...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnston by Johnston v. Lynch, 88-058
...Experts' reports obtained by a lawyer are almost always considered to be part of his or her work product. Willett v. General Elec. Co., 113 N.H. 358, 359, 306 A.2d 789, 790 (1973). However, this does not automatically protect them from discovery if "relevant facts are unobtainable by other ......
-
Hydraform Products Corp. v. American Steel & Aluminum Corp., 83-375
...was Hydraform's failure to disclose in advance of trial that Mr. Choate would offer opinion testimony. In Willett v. General Elec. Co., 113 N.H. 358, 360, 306 A.2d 789, 791 (1973) we held that as a matter of course a party may discover (a) the names of those whom his adversary intends to ca......
-
State v. Drewry, 93-487
...obtained by a lawyer from his experts are almost always considered to be part of his work product." Willett v. General Elec. Co., 113 N.H. 358, 359, 306 A.2d 789, 790 (1973). We reasoned [r]eports from experts present peculiar problems. In the first place they are more likely than ordinary ......
-
Sawyer v. Boufford, 6561
...Recent decisions of this court have stressed the importance of broad pretrial discovery. Willett v. General Elec. Co., 113 N.H. --, --, 306 A.2d 789, 790 (1973); Workman v. Public Serv. Co. of N.H., 113 N.H. --, --, 308 A.2d 540 (1973). However, there are competing policies which require im......