Parker et al. v. Mobile Gas Service Corporation et al.
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Supreme Court of Alabama?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Supreme Court of Alabama. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Plaintiffs sued Mobile Gas Service Corporation, pipeline operators and several other companies over the release of an odorant containing mercaptan. Mobile Gas, stated that, in fall 2011, Mobile Gas started receiving complaints about natural-gas leaks in the Eight Mile area; that the complaints centered around the facilities of Gulf South and Mobile Gas. plaintiffs, who resided in the Eight Mile area, filed their complaint, alleging nuisance, aggravated nuisance, negligence, and wantonness against the defendants arising from the release of mercaptan. A dispute arose over the issuance of a subpoena to the engineering firm that did the initial survey of the leak for Mobile Gas in response to an investigation by State Department of Environmental Management (ADEM). Mobile Gas objected to plaintiffs' attempt to subpoena the engineer; Mobile asserted that the engineer's report was privileged and therefore protected by the work-product privilege. The trial court denied Mobile Gas' objection. Mobile then filed its mandamus petition with the Supreme Court. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that Mobile Gas has established that the trial court exceeded its discretion when it disregarded the work-product privilege and entered an order compelling Mobile Gas to produce the documents included in the privilege log and when it denied Mobile Gas's motion for a protective order. Thus, Mobile Gas has established a clear legal right to a protective order regarding the production of the documents listed on the privilege log it submitted to the trial court. Accordingly, the Court granted Mobile Gas's petition for the writ of mandamus and directed the trial court to set aside its order compelling the production of documents included in the privilege log and to order those documents protected (including the engineer's report) from discovery.
Download PDF
REL: 04/05/2013 N o t i c e : This o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 1120229 Ex p a r t e Mobile Gas S e r v i c e C o r p o r a t i o n PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In r e : Donald R. Parker e t a l . v. Mobile Gas S e r v i c e C o r p o r a t i o n e t a l . ) (Mobile C i r c u i t Court, CV-12-900711) WISE, Justice. On A p r i l 5, 2 0 1 2 , D o n a l d R. P a r k e r Lorenzo M a r i n and V a l e r i e M a r i n , Jeremiah and Deborah P a r k e r , H o l l i n s and C a r o l y n 1120229 Hollins, Douglas Urban and Ramona U r b a n , Larry Pettway and W i l l i e P e t t w a y , R i t a C o l l i n s , A r t h u r W a l l a c e , D a l e T. W a l l a c e , Harday E a r l McCracken, M e l v i n D a v i s and K i m b l a D a v i s , B e t t y Downey, L a r r y S u l l i v a n and B a r b a r a S u l l i v a n , and D o n a l d Sawyer and C a r o l y n Sawyer ( " t h e p l a i n t i f f s " ) s u e d M o b i l e Gas Corporation ("Mobile Gas"); Jon Davis; James Service "Mike" Fine; A l l e n Hobbs; Sempra P i p e l i n e s and S t o r a g e C o r p o r a t i o n ; Sempra U.S. Gas and Energies, South"); Power, Inc.; Todd fictitiously LLC; Gulf South Waldrop; named Bay Gas Pipeline GS Pipeline defendants r e f e r r e d t o as " t h e d e f e n d a n t s " ) . R. a C i v . P., the p l a i n t i f f s f i l e d nonparty ("McFadden"), subpoena Storage on Company; Company, L.P. Company, (hereinafter Pine ("Gulf LLC; and collectively P u r s u a n t t o R u l e 45, A l a . a notice of i n t e n t to serve McFadden Engineering, Inc. requesting: "All documents regarding any investigation, s a m p l i n g , s t u d y , o r work c o n d u c t e d c o n c e r n i n g t h e s u b j e c t s o f odor or Mercaptan i n the E i g h t M i l e , A l a b a m a community." M o b i l e Gas f i l e d an o b j e c t i o n t o t h e n o t i c e o f i n t e n t t o s e r v e a n o n p a r t y s u b p o e n a on McFadden and a m o t i o n f o r a p r o t e c t i v e order. I t also f i l e d , documents i t i n camera, a p r i v i l e g e l o g l i s t i n g contended were subject 2 to the 352 workproduct 1120229 privilege. On October 12, 2012, t h e t r i a l court ordered McFadden t o t u r n o v e r 3 4 9 o f t h e 352 documents l i s t e d i n t h e privilege log; overruled subpoena; order. and d e n i e d Mobile Gas Mobile Mobile then Gas's Gas's filed a motion objection for a petition of the documents protective order. the protective f o r a writ mandamus r e q u e s t i n g t h a t t h i s C o u r t d i r e c t t h e t r i a l r e s c i n d i t s October to of court to 12, 2012, o r d e r c o m p e l l i n g t h e p r o d u c t i o n and denying Mobile Gas's motion for a We g r a n t t h e p e t i t i o n a n d i s s u e t h e w r i t . F a c t u a l Background and P r o c e d u r a l H i s t o r y In was 2008, a t G u l f a r e l e a s e o f an o d o r a n t regulations gas, South's which November Management facility c o n t a i n i n g mercaptan. r e q u i r e that odorants i s normally 2011, the i n Eight Mile, be injected there Federal into natural o d o r l e s s , as a s a f e t y p r a c t i c e . Alabama Department of In Environmental ("ADEM") was n o t i f i e d o f an o d o r c o m p l a i n t i n t h e E i g h t M i l e C r e e k a r e a t h a t was a d j a c e n t t o C o c h r a n Road. his affidavit, G. E d w a r d Downing, g e n e r a l c o u n s e l f o r M o b i l e Gas, s t a t e d t h a t , complaints that In in fall 2 0 1 1 , M o b i l e Gas s t a r t e d about n a t u r a l - g a s the complaints centered receiving leaks i n the Eight M i l e around the f a c i l i t i e s 3 area; of Gulf 1120229 S o u t h a n d M o b i l e Gas a t W h i s t l e r J u n c t i o n , A l a b a m a ; a n d t h a t , on or before M a r c h 9, 2 0 1 2 , ADEM o r a l l y t h a t ADEM w a n t e d M o b i l e Gas t o c o n d u c t either the presence confirm o r deny a d v i s e d M o b i l e Gas an i n v e s t i g a t i o n t o o f mercaptan subsurface s o i l or groundwater i n t h e area. i n the He s t a t e d t h a t , a l s o on M a r c h 9, 2 0 1 2 , M o b i l e Gas r e t a i n e d McFadden t o a s s i s t w i t h t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n a n d w i t h M o b i l e Gas's r e s p o n s e t o ADEM. Downing Courtney, stated that, on March 12, 2 0 1 2 , J . J r . , counsel f o r the p l a i n t i f f s , t o l d h i m he r e p r e s e n t e d s e v e r a l p e o p l e about t h e odor i n the Eight groundwater-incident i n which c o n t a c t e d him and who were area. complaining ADEM issued t o M o b i l e Gas on M a r c h 13, i t r e q u i r e d M o b i l e Gas t o c o n d u c t On M a r c h meeting letter Mile Patrick 22, 2 0 1 2 , C o u r t n e y o f odor 2012, the investigation. a n d Downing regarding the complaints a h a d an in-person i n the Eight Mile area. On A p r i l Eight Mile 5, 2 0 1 2 , t h e p l a i n t i f f s , area, filed aggravated nuisance, defendants arising their complaint, negligence, from who r e s i d e d i n t h e alleging nuisance, and wantonness a g a i n s t t h e the release of mercaptan. 1 The T h e r e a r e f o u r o t h e r l a w s u i t s a r i s i n g from t h e mercaptan release. However, t h i s mandamus p e t i t i o n does n o t i n v o l v e 1 4 1120229 complaint a l l e g e d that Gulf Gas; that Gulf possession South's S o u t h s o l d n a t u r a l gas t o M o b i l e of the n a t u r a l Whistler Junction gas was facility; transferred at that, at that f a c i l i t y , m e r c a p t a n was m i x e d a n d / o r i n j e c t e d i n t o t h e n a t u r a l gas; that the d e f e n d a n t s "caused and/or a l l o w e d n a t u r a l gas a n d / o r M e r c a p t a n t o e s c a p e f r o m i t s f a c i l i t i e s s u c h t h a t same have been r e l e a s e d i n t o t h e e n v i r o n m e n t i n c l u d i n g g r o u n d w a t e r aquifers, ponds, defendants' s t r e a m s , and t h e a t m o s p h e r e " ; actions have exposed the and t h a t plaintiffs, the their f a m i l i e s , and t h e i r p r o p e r t i e s t o n o x i o u s m e r c a p t a n p o l l u t i o n . On July 1, 2012, the p l a i n t i f f s i n t e n t t o s e r v e a n o n p a r t y subpoena filed their on McFadden. notice of On J u l y 24, 2012, M o b i l e Gas f i l e d i t s o b j e c t i o n t o t h e n o t i c e o f t h e n o n party subpoena contended that t o McFadden. i t had In i t s objection, Mobile r e t a i n e d McFadden as a c o n s u l t a n t Gas in a n t i c i p a t i o n of l i t i g a t i o n , which i n c l u d e d a s s i s t a n c e w i t h the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the cause of the odor t h a t had p r e c i p i t a t e d t h e c o m p l a i n t s , and t h a t t h e r e q u e s t e d d i s c o v e r y was by Rule asserted, 26(b)(4) the and request ( 5 ) , A l a . R. included those other cases. 5 Civ. documents P., protected because, "prepared by i t a 1120229 c o n s u l t a n t o f M o b i l e Gas i n a n t i c i p a t i o n o f l i t i g a t i o n by an e x p e r t who was r e t a i n e d i n a n t i c i p a t i o n and/or of l i t i g a t i o n b u t who, a t t h i s t i m e , h a s n o t b e e n d e s i g n a t e d a s an e x p e r t t o be c a l l e d as a w i t n e s s a t t r i a l . " On A u g u s t Mobile Gas's plaintiffs 8, 2 0 1 2 , t h e p l a i n t i f f s filed o b j e c t i o n t o t h e subpoena asserted that Mobile Gas's a response t o McFadden. records to The show t h a t i t r e t a i n e d McFadden " t o c o n d u c t an i n v e s t i g a t i o n o r d e r e d b y ADEM well p r i o r to the f i l i n g had o f t h e s u b j e c t s u i t " ; t h a t M o b i l e Gas p r e v i o u s l y produced thousands o f pages of documents g e n e r a t e d b y McFadden; t h a t McFadden h a d p r e v i o u s l y p r o v i d e d most of those Protection documents Agency ("EPA") t o ADEM and t h a t "otherwise p u b l i c l y d i s t r i b u t e d " ; did not and the those Environmental documents were t h a t " [ c ] l e a r l y M o b i l e Gas n o t v i e w McFadden as a ' t r i a l e x p e r t , ' o t h e r w i s e i t w o u l d have produced such voluminous documentation regarding McFadden's work; a n d t h a t , " t o t h e e x t e n t McFadden i s a e x p e r t , ' M o b i l e Gas h a s ' w a i v e d ' restriction contended on McFadden's a n y p r i v i l e g e o r work p r o d u c t records." t h a t the workproduct 'trial The p l a i n t i f f s also d o c t r i n e does n o t a p p l y t o a p a r t y who was " ' n o t s p e c i a l l y e m p l o y e d f o r a c a s e , ' b u t whose 6 1120229 work was provided b e e n any showing t h a t Armbrecht J a c k s o n , LLP, represented i n a d i f f e r e n t context"; M o b i l e Gas t h a t t h e r e had a law i n t h e a c t i o n f i l e d by t h e had r e t a i n e d McFadden; t h a t e v e r y t h i n g Gas had d i r e c t l y r e t a i n e d McFadden t o h a n d l e t h e required by McFadden was advice had ADEM; t h a t retained t o M o b i l e Gas; been there in of in not with McFadden's and showing that rendering that, workproduct, Mobile investigation s e r v i c e s r e n d e r e d by nature; that plaintiffs, indicated that b e e n any connection t h a t the "business" dissemination had firm not legal McFadden based "there on the was no ' c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y ' a t t a c h e d t h e r e t o by McFadden, M o b i l e Gas, M o b i l e Gas arise counsel. until a records." Finally, The subpoena (Emphasis the p l a i n t i f f s been s p e c i a l l y preparation permissible and was and issued f o r ALL of capitalization the in discovery upon a s h o w i n g o f of the of original.) litigation requested exceptional or had in documents that circumstances "[p]laintiffs obviously cannot o b t a i n the data obtained by McFadden -soil tests, a i r tests, g r o u n d w a t e r t e s t s , e t c . on M o b i l e G a s / G u l f S o u t h properties since p r e - s u i t dates." 7 not McFadden c o n t e n d e d t h a t , e v e n i f McFadden employed i n a n t i c i p a t i o n for t r i a l , was a s s e r t i o n of ' c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y d i d or 1120229 On August Plaintiffs' Subpoena 23, 2012, M o b i l e Gas filed Response t o Defendant M o b i l e t o McFadden P r o t e c t i v e Order." Engineering, i t s "Reply Gas's O b j e c t i o n t o I n c . and Motion for a I n i t s r e p l y , M o b i l e Gas s t a t e d : "As s e t f o r t h a b o v e , McFadden a t a l l t i m e s h a s a c t e d as an e x p e r t c o n s u l t a n t t o M o b i l e Gas i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n a n d M o b i l e Gas's r e s p o n s e t o ADEM a n d i n a n t i c i p a t i o n o f l i t i g a t i o n and p r e p a r a t i o n f o r t r i a l i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e litigation. W h i l e t h e r e p o r t s p r e p a r e d b y McFadden s u b m i t t e d t o ADEM a n d t h e u n d e r l y i n g d a t a (which h a v e b e e n p r o d u c e d b y M o b i l e Gas) a n d McFadden's communications with ADEM are not protected, McFadden's work f o r M o b i l e Gas as a litigation consultant both with respect t o the i n v e s t i g a t i o n and ADEM demand a n d t h e l i t i g a t i o n i s p r o t e c t e d b y R u l e s 2 6 ( b ) ( 4 ) a n d (5) o f t h e A l a b a m a R u l e s o f C i v i l Procedure." M o b i l e Gas f u r t h e r s t a t e d : " M o b i l e Gas was a d v i s e d b y ADEM b e f o r e M o b i l e Gas c o n t a c t e d McFadden on M a r c h 9, 2012 t h a t ADEM w o u l d require the i n v e s t i g a t i o n and M o b i l e Gas was c o n t a c t e d b y P l a i n t i f f s ' c o u n s e l on M a r c h 12, 2 0 1 2 , o n l y t h r e e days l a t e r . ... When ADEM ( a n d t h e n P l a i n t i f f s ' c o u n s e l ) c o n t a c t e d M o b i l e Gas, M o b i l e Gas r e a s o n a b l y a n d c o r r e c t l y b e l i e v e d t h a t t h e prospect of r e g u l a t o r y proceedings b y ADEM a n d l i t i g a t i o n w i t h c e r t a i n o d o r c o m p l a i n a n t s was h i g h l y p r o b a b l e . ... M o b i l e Gas h i r e d McFadden b e c a u s e ADEM was r e q u i r i n g a c t i o n b y M o b i l e Gas. McFadden, t h e r e f o r e , a c t e d as a c o n s u l t a n t i n a n t i c i p a t i o n o f l i t i g a t i o n a n d t h e documents c r e a t e d b y McFadden were c r e a t e d when M o b i l e Gas was a n t i c i p a t i n g a n d responding t o l i t i g a t i o n . See A t l a n t i c R i c h f i e l d Co., (No. 9 3 - C V - 0 9 5 0 E ( H ) , A u g . 2 1 , 1997) [ ( n o t r e p o r t e d i n F. S u p p . ) ] (documents a r e c r e a t e d i n 8 to 1120229 a n t i c i p a t i o n o f l i t i g a t i o n when t h e y a r e p r e p a r e d w i t h a s u b j e c t i v e b e l i e f t h a t l i t i g a t i o n might ensue and when t h e s u b j e c t i v e b e l i e f i s objectively reasonable). " F e d e r a l C o u r t s have e x t e n d e d t h e w o r k - p r o d u c t p r o t e c t i o n t o documents p r e p a r e d b y e n v i r o n m e n t a l consultants i n response t o an i n q u i r y f r o m a g o v e r n m e n t a l e n v i r o n m e n t a l a g e n c y . See I n r e G r a n d Jury Subpoena (Mark Torf/Torf Environmental Management) , 357 F.3d 900, 910 ( 9 t h C i r . [ 2 0 0 4 ] ) (holding that c e r t a i n 'dual purpose' documents c r e a t e d i n r e s p o n s e t o t h e EPA i n f o r m a t i o n r e q u e s t and c o n s e n t o r d e r were p r o t e c t e d f r o m d i s c o v e r y b y t h e work p r o d u c t d o c t r i n e as t h e y were created because of p o t e n t i a l l i t i g a t i o n with the EPA); A t l a n t i c R i c h f i e l d Co. ... ( h o l d i n g t h a t documents c r e a t e d b y e n v i r o n m e n t a l c o n s u l t a n t s were p r o t e c t e d from discovery by t h e work-product doctrine); B i t u m i n o u s C a s . C o r p . v. Tonka C o r p . , 140 F.R.D. 381 (D. Minn. 1992) (applying the work-product p r o t e c t i o n t o documents c r e a t e d b y an e n v i r o n m e n t a l c o n s u l t a n t i n response t o a s t a t e p o l l u t i o n agency's d i r e c t i v e s t o conduct i n v e s t i g a t i o n s and prepare reports). T h e r e f o r e , t h e McFadden documents do n o t l o s e the work-product p r o t e c t i o n simply because McFadden h a s p e r f o r m e d d u a l r o l e s b y a i d i n g i n t h e ADEM i n v e s t i g a t i o n a n d a c t i n g as a t r i a l c o n s u l t a n t f o r M o b i l e Gas." Mobile Gas a l s o a s s e r t e d t h a t i t h a d n o t w a i v e d i t s c l a i m o f workproduct documents privilege that consultant. because r e l a t e d t o McFadden's Finally, Mobile exceptional circumstances obtain i t had production not role produced as a any litigation Gas a s s e r t e d t h a t t h e r e were no that should allow the p l a i n t i f f s t o o f McFadden 9 documents that related to 1120229 McFadden's r o l e as a l i t i g a t i o n c o n s u l t a n t . In support of i t s r e p l y and m o t i o n f o r a p r o t e c t i v e o r d e r , M o b i l e Gas affidavits Downing; Norman W a l d r o p , Gas who from counsel submitted for Mobile p r a c t i c e d w i t h the law f i r m of Armbrecht J a c k s o n , LLP; and B r a d Newton, a p r o f e s s i o n a l e n g i n e e r w i t h McFadden. On A u g u s t 26, 2012, M o b i l e Gas o r Quash and S u p p l e m e n t a l McFadden E n g i n e e r i n g , f i l e d a "Motion to Strike O b j e c t i o n t o I s s u a n c e o f Subpoena t o Inc." On August 28, the trial court o r d e r e d M o b i l e Gas t o p r o d u c e a p r i v i l e g e l o g o f a l l documents i t c l a i m e d t o be p r o t e c t e d . filed a "Motion f o r Court On September 27, 2012, Mobile t o Amend O r d e r R e g a r d i n g E n g i n e e r i n g Documents," i n w h i c h i t moved t h e t r i a l court for i t s privilege 2012, submitted a p r i v i l e g e l o g to the t r i a l court 12, order in On McFadden leave t o submit M o b i l e Gas l o g i n camera. Gas October 1, camera. On October 2012, the trial court entered an stating: "In response t o the p l a i n t i f f s ' o r a l motion to c o m p e l and a f t e r a r e v i e w o f t h e p r i v i l e g e l o g o f M o b i l e Gas w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e McFadden E n g i n e e r i n g d o c u m e n t s , i t i s ORDERED t h a t a l l p r i v i l e g e l o g documents be p r o d u c e d except for privilege log documents numbered 12, 35, and 41. 10 1120229 "The C o u r t f u r t h e r DENIES M o b i l e Gas' o b j e c t i o n t o i s s u a n c e o f a s u b p o e n a t o McFadden E n g i n e e r i n g and f u r t h e r DENIES t h e d e f e n d a n t s ' motion f o r a protective order." (Capitalization Gas i n original.) On November 26, 2012, M o b i l e f i l e d i t s p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus w i t h t h i s Court. Standard o f Review "'Discovery matters are w i t h i n the t r i a l c o u r t ' s sound d i s c r e t i o n , and t h i s Court w i l l not reverse a t r i a l court's r u l i n g on a d i s c o v e r y i s s u e u n l e s s t h e trial court has c l e a r l y exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n . Home I n s . Co. v. R i c e , 585 So. 2d 859, 862 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) . Accordingly, mandamus w i l l i s s u e t o r e v e r s e a t r i a l c o u r t ' s r u l i n g on a d i s c o v e r y i s s u e o n l y (1) where t h e r e i s a s h o w i n g t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t c l e a r l y exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n , and (2) where t h e a g g r i e v e d p a r t y does n o t have an a d e q u a t e remedy b y o r d i n a r y a p p e a l . The p e t i t i o n e r h a s an a f f i r m a t i v e b u r d e n t o prove the e x i s t e n c e of each of these conditions.' "Ex p a r t e Ocwen F e d . Bank, FSB, 872 So. 2d 810, 813 (Ala. 2003). " M o r e o v e r , t h i s C o u r t w i l l r e v i e w b y mandamus only those d i s c o v e r y m a t t e r s i n v o l v i n g (a) t h e d i s r e g a r d o f a p r i v i l e g e , (b) t h e o r d e r e d p r o d u c t i o n of ' p a t e n t l y i r r e l e v a n t o r d u p l i c a t i v e documents,' (c) orders effectively e v i s c e r a t i n g 'a p a r t y ' s e n t i r e a c t i o n o r d e f e n s e , ' a n d (d) o r d e r s d e n y i n g a p a r t y t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o make a r e c o r d s u f f i c i e n t f o r a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w o f t h e d i s c o v e r y i s s u e . 872 So. 2d a t 813-14. The o r d e r c h a l l e n g e d i n t h i s c a s e involving alleged work product and the 11 1120229 attorney-client category (a)." Ex parte (Ala. privilege is Meadowbrook I n s . Group, 2007). reviewable Inc., 987 So. under 2d The o r d e r c h a l l e n g e d h e r e i s l i k e w i s e under c a t e g o r y 540, 547 reviewable (a). Discussion I. M o b i l e Gas a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r o n e o u s l y denied i t s m o t i o n f o r a p r o t e c t i v e o r d e r b e c a u s e , i t s a y s , McFadden's work as that a consultant f o r Mobile i s p r o t e c t e d by R u l e Specifically, Mobile Gas Gas 26(b)(4) c o n s t i t u t e s workproduct and ( 5 ) , A l a . R. Civ. c o n t e n d s t h a t McFadden w o r k e d as P. a l i t i g a t i o n c o n s u l t a n t ; t h a t t h e documents p r o d u c e d by McFadden c o n s t i t u t e d m a t e r i a l s p r o d u c e d f o r a p a r t y ; and t h a t t h e work performed by McFadden was performed in anticipation of litigation. R u l e 2 6 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., provides, i n pertinent part: "(b) Discovery Scope and Limits. Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance w i t h these r u l e s , the scope of d i s c o v e r y i s as f o l l o w s : " "(4) T r i a l P r e p a r a t i o n : M a t e r i a l s . S u b j e c t t o the p r o v i s i o n s of s u b d i v i s i o n (b)(5) of t h i s r u l e , 12 1120229 a p a r t y may o b t a i n d i s c o v e r y o f documents a n d tangible things otherwise discoverable under subdivision (b)(1) o f t h i s r u l e and p r e p a r e d i n a n t i c i p a t i o n o f l i t i g a t i o n o r f o r t r i a l by o r f o r another party or b yor f o r that other party's representative (including the other party's attorney, consultant, surety, indemnitor, insurer, o r a g e n t ) o n l y upon a s h o w i n g t h a t t h e p a r t y s e e k i n g d i s c o v e r y has s u b s t a n t i a l need o f t h e m a t e r i a l s i n the p r e p a r a t i o n o f t h e p a r t y ' s case and t h a t t h e p a r t y i s u n a b l e w i t h o u t undue h a r d s h i p t o o b t a i n t h e s u b s t a n t i a l e q u i v a l e n t o f t h e m a t e r i a l s by o t h e r means. I n o r d e r i n g d i s c o v e r y o f s u c h m a t e r i a l s when t h e r e q u i r e d s h o w i n g h a s b e e n made, t h e c o u r t s h a l l protect against disclosure o f t h e mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, o r legal t h e o r i e s o f an a t t o r n e y o r o t h e r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f a party concerning the l i t i g a t i o n . " "(6) Claims of P r i v i l e g e Trial-Preparation Materials. T)-^^-^-^-^ . I ; ^ v ^ - 1 A-^ \ -I- ^ -.^ -! -^ 1 or Protection o f ^ "(A) When a party withholds information otherwise d i s c o v e r a b l e under these rules on a c l a i m that i t is p r i v i l e g e d or subject t o p r o t e c t i o n as trial-preparation materials, the claim s h a l l be made e x p r e s s l y a n d , upon w r i t t e n request b y any o t h e r party, s h a l l be s u p p o r t e d by a d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e nature o f the documents, communications, o r t h i n g s not produced s u f f i c i e n t t o enable the demanding p a r t y t o c o n t e s t t h e c l a i m . T h i s supporting description shall be served w i t h i n t w e n t y - o n e (21) days o f t h e d a t e a request i s served, unless otherwise ordered." 13 1120229 In product Meadowbrook, supra, this Court addressed t h e work- p r i v i l e g e as f o l l o w s : " A c c o r d i n g t o t h e p e t i t i o n e r s , ' t h e documents requested by Andrews fall squarely w i t h i n the p r o t e c t i o n p r o v i d e d by [ A l a . R. C i v . P. 2 6 ( b ) ( 3 ) ] , as Andrews i s s e e k i n g i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t " t h e m e n t a l impressions, c o n c l u s i o n s , opinion or l e g a l t h e o r i e s " surrounding the d e c i s i o n t o terminate [his] worker's c o m p e n s a t i o n b e n e f i t s . ' ... 2 " ' ' "Andrews c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e p e t i t i o n e r s have f a i l e d t o meet [ t h e i r ] b u r d e n o f [ s h o w i n g ] t h a t t h e a d j u s t e r ' s n o t e s a r e work p r o d u c t . ' Andrews b r i e f , at 17. This i s s o , b e c a u s e , he a r g u e s , the p e t i t i o n e r s have p r e s e n t e d no e v i d e n c e indicating that the claims notes, or anything e l s e i n t h e i r f i l e s were ' p r e p a r e d i n a n t i c i p a t i o n o f l i t i g a t i o n or f o r t r i a l . ' We a g r e e . "'"Under R u l e 2 6 ( b ) ( 3 ) , t h e p a r t y o b j e c t i n g t o d i s c o v e r y bears the burden of e s t a b l i s h i n g the elements of the work-product e x c e p t i o n . " ' Ex p a r t e Cummings, 776 So. 2d 771, 774 ( A l a . 2000) ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e G a r r i c k , 642 So. 2d 951, 952-53 ( A l a . 1994)). Those e l e m e n t s a r e ' t h a t (1) t h e m a t e r i a l s s o u g h t t o be p r o t e c t e d a r e documents o r t a n g i b l e t h i n g s ; (2) t h e y were p r e p a r e d i n a n t i c i p a t i o n o f l i t i g a t i o n o r f o r t r i a l ; a n d (3) t h e y were p r e p a r e d by o r f o r a p a r t y o r a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h a t party.' J o h n s o n v. G m e i n d e r , 191 F.R.D. 638, 643 (D. Kan. 2 0 0 0 ) ; s e e a l s o 8 C. W r i g h t , A. M i l l e r & R. The s u b s e c t i o n s o f R u l e 2 6 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., were r e n u m b e r e d as a r e s u l t o f amendments e f f e c t i v e F e b r u a r y 1, 2010. What were s u b s e c t i o n s ( b ) ( 3 ) , ( b ) ( 4 ) , a n d ( b ) ( 5 ) a r e now s u b s e c t i o n s ( b ) ( 4 ) , ( b ) ( 5 ) , and ( b ) ( 6 ) . See S o u t u l l o v. M o b i l e C n t y . , 58 So. 3d 733, 739 ( A l a . 2 0 1 0 ) . 2 14 1120229 Marcus, F e d e r a l 336 (1994) . P r a c t i c e and Procedure § 2024, at "Once '"the p a r t i e s a r e ' a t i s s u e as t o w h e t h e r the document[s] sought [were], i n f a c t , p r e p a r e d i n a n t i c i p a t i o n of l i t i g a t i o n , ' " ' the o b j e c t i n g p a r t y must make ' " [ a ] n e v i d e n t i a r y s h o w i n g . " ' Ex p a r t e Cummings, 776 So. 2d a t 774 ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e S t a t e Farm A u t o . I n s . Co., 761 So. 2d 1000, 1002-03 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n Ex p a r t e G a r r i c k , 642 So. 2d a t 953 ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) ) . I t i s Andrews's p o s i t i o n -- and t h e p e t i t i o n e r s do n o t deny -- t h a t A n d r e w s ' s m o t i o n s t o c o m p e l p l a c e d t h e p a r t i e s ' a t i s s u e ' as to whether the claims file was prepared in a n t i c i p a t i o n of l i t i g a t i o n . " I n s u c h a c a s e , '[a] " b l a n k e t c l a i m " as t o t h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f t h e work p r o d u c t d o c t r i n e does n o t s a t i s f y the [ o b j e c t i n g p a r t i e s ' ] burden of p r o o f . ' D i s i d o r e v. M a i l C o n t r a c t o r s o f A m e r i c a , I n c . , 196 F.R.D. 410, 413 (D. Kan. 2000). '"That b u r d e n c a n n o t be d i s c h a r g e d by mere c o n c l u s o r y o r i p s e d i x i t a s s e r t i o n s . " ' I d . ( q u o t i n g McCoo v. Denny's, I n c . , 192 F.R.D. 675, 680 (D. Kan. 2 0 0 0 ) ) . Where t h e r e c o r d c o n t a i n s 'no a f f i d a v i t s , memorandums, o r reports to support the [objecting parties' c o n t e n t i o n s ] , ' t h e c o u r t can o n l y ' s p e c u l a t e ' as t o whether the m a t e r i a l s ' f a l l under the work-product exception. ' Ex p a r t e F u l l e r , 600 So. 2d 214, 216 (Ala. 1992) . See a l s o Nutmeg I n s . Co. v. A t w e l l , Vogel & S t e r l i n g , a Div. of E q u i f a x Servs., Inc., 120 F.R.D. 504, 510 (W.D. La. 1988) ('A clear s h o w i n g must be made w h i c h s e t s f o r t h t h e i t e m s o r c a t e g o r i e s o b j e c t e d t o and the reason f o r t h a t objection Accordingly, the proponent must p r o v i d e t h e c o u r t w i t h enough i n f o r m a t i o n t o e n a b l e t h e c o u r t t o d e t e r m i n e p r i v i l e g e , and t h e p r o p o n e n t must show by a f f i d a v i t t h a t p r e c i s e f a c t s e x i s t t o support the c l a i m of p r i v i l e g e . ' ) . the "In t h a t connection, F r a n c i s Powell argues t h a t ' [ p ] e t i t i o n e r s n e e d n o t p r o v e t h a t t h e r e was any 15 1120229 " a n t i c i p a t i o n " of l i t i g a t i o n , because l i t i g a t i o n had already commenced when these documents were c r e a t e d . ' F r a n c i s P o w e l l ' s r e p l y b r i e f , a t 17. We disagree. "'Where an insurer has a separate and independent c o n t r a c t u a l duty t o i n v e s t i g a t e a c l a i m , t h e i n s u r e r must s a t i s f y t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f R u l e 26(b) ( 3 ) [ , A l a . R. C i v . P.,] ... b y s h o w i n g more t h a n s i m p l y when a document was p r e p a r e d . The i n s u r e r ... must show why e a c h document was p r e p a r e d and how i t was u s e d . ' Ex p a r t e S t a t e Farm Mut. A u t o . I n s . Co., 761 So. 2d 1000, 1004 ( A l a . 2000) ( L y o n s , J . , c o n c u r r i n g s p e c i a l l y ) (emphasis a d d e d ) . There i s a 'requirement [ i n ] Rule 26(b)(3) of a c a u s a l r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e impending l i t i g a t i o n and t h e p r o d u c t i o n o r u s e o f t h e d o c u m e n t s . ' I d . The i n q u i r y ' " ' s h o u l d be w h e t h e r , i n l i g h t o f t h e n a t u r e o f t h e document a n d f a c t u a l s i t u a t i o n i n t h e p a r t i c u l a r c a s e , t h e document c a n f a i r l y be s a i d t o have b e e n p r e p a r e d o r o b t a i n e d b-e c -a^ u s-e o p ^ t Th- e T - -f prospect of l i t i g a t i o n . ' " ' 761 So. 2d a t 1002 ( o p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t ) ( q u o t i n g Sims v. K n o l l w o o d P a r k Hosp., 511 So. 2d 154, 157 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n B r i n k s M f g . Co. v. N a t i o n a l P r e s t o I n d u s . , Inc., 709 F . 2 d 1109, 1119 ( 7 t h C i r . 1 9 8 3 ) ) . Thus, 'the p u r p o s e f o r w h i c h a p a r t y c r e a t e d a document i s the fundamental requirement o f t h e R u l e , and [ r e g a r d l e s s o f whether] litigation i s reasonably a n t i c i p a t e d , c e r t a i n , o r e v e n underway , a c o u r t must s t i l l u n d e r t a k e an e x a m i n a t i o n o f why a document was produced.' H a r p e r v. A u t o - O w n e r s I n s . Co. 138 F.R.D. 655, 661 (S.D. I n d . 1991) (some e m p h a s i s added). See a l s o S t o u t v . I l l i n o i s F a r m e r s I n s . Co., 150 F.R.D. 594, 597 (S.D. I n d . 1 9 9 3 ) ; S c h m i d t v. C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e A u t o . A s s ' n , 127 F.R.D. 182, 184 (D. Nev. 1989) ('The m a j o r i t y o f c a s e s t h a t have dealt with the issue o f whether investigative m a t e r i a l s p r e p a r e d by i n s u r a n c e c l a i m s a d j u s t e r s i s work-product prepared i n a n t i c i p a t i o n of l i t i g a t i o n have h e l d t h a t s i n c e i n s u r a n c e c o m p a n i e s have a routine duty to investigate accidents, such 16 1120229 materials are not prepared i n a n t i c i p a t i o n of l i t i g a t i o n but are prepared i n the ordinary course of b u s i n e s s absent unique circumstances showing t h e contrary.'). "In this case, the p e t i t i o n e r s h a d an independent duty t o handle and a d m i n i s t e r Andrews's worker's compensation c l a i m . Consequently, they cannot s a t i s f y Rule 26(b)(3) by a b l a n k e t o b j e c t i o n t o d i s c o v e r y on t h e b a s i s t h a t t h e m a t e r i a l s s o u g h t a r e work p r o d u c t . "Meadowbrook a l s o c o n t e n d s t h a t i t c a n n o t c o m p l y w i t h t h e requirement t h a t i t present 'evidence t h a t the contents o f t h e a d j u s t e r ' s notes f a l l w i t h i n t h e ... definition o f work p r o d u c t p r i v i l e g e .... without d i s c l o s i n g the communication i t s e l f , which i s p r e c i s e l y what i s s o u g h t t o be p r o t e c t e d . ' Meadowbrook's r e p l y b r i e f , a t 11-12. Again, we disagree. Rule 26(b)(5) [now R u l e 26(b)(6)(A)] states, i n pertinent part: "'When a party withholds information o t h e r w i s e d i s c o v e r a b l e u n d e r t h e s e r u l e s on a claim that i t i s p r i v i l e g e d or subject to p r o t e c t i o n as t r i a l - p r e p a r a t i o n m a t e r i a l s , t h e c l a i m s h a l l be made e x p r e s s l y and, upon w r i t t e n r e q u e s t by any o t h e r p a r t y , s h a l l be s u p p o r t e d b y a d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e n a t u r e of t h e documents, communications, o r t h i n g s not produced s u f f i c i e n t t o enable the demanding p a r t y t o c o n t e s t t h e c l a i m . ' "(Emphasis added.) 2 " C o m p l i a n c e w i t h R u l e 26 does n o t o b v i a t e t h e p r o t e c t i o n a t i s s u e . As t h e f e d e r a l c o u n t e r p a r t t o R u l e 26 p r o v i d e s : "'When a party withholds information otherwise d i s c o v e r a b l e by c l a i m i n g t h a t t h e information i s p r i v i l e g e d or subject to 17 1120229 p r o t e c t i o n as t r i a l - p r e p a r a t i o n t h e p a r t y must: "'(i) c l a i m ; and expressly make material, the " ' ( i i ) describe the nature o f t h e documents, c o m m u n i c a t i o n s , or t a n g i b l e t h i n g s n o t produced o r d i s c l o s e d -- a n d do so i n a manner t h a t , w i t h o u t r e v e a l i n g information i t s e l f p r i v i l e g e d or protected, will enable other p a r t i e s to assess the claim.' "Fed. R. C i v . P. 2 6 ( b ) ( 5 ) ( A ) . I n o t h e r words, t h e s e r u l e s c o n t e m p l a t e t h a t an o b j e c t i n g p a r t y ' s s h o w i n g need n o t ' r e v e a l [ ] i n f o r m a t i o n i t s e l f p r i v i l e g e d o r protected,' b u t must i n c l u d e enough information r e g a r d i n g e a c h document f o r w h i c h t h e p r o t e c t i o n i s c l a i m e d t o 'enable t h e c o u r t t o determine' t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h e o b j e c t i o n s . ... II " A s i m i l a r p r o v i s i o n i s c o n t a i n e d i n A l a . R. Civ. P. 4 5 ( d ) ( 2 ) , w h i c h d e a l s w i t h d i s c o v e r y f r o m n o n p a r t i e s . That s e c t i o n p r o v i d e s : 2 "'When i n f o r m a t i o n s u b j e c t t o a subpoena i s w i t h h e l d on a c l a i m t h a t i t i s p r i v i l e g e d or subject to protection as trial p r e p a r a t i o n m a t e r i a l s , t h e c l a i m s h a l l be made e x p r e s s l y a n d s h a l l be s u p p o r t e d b y a d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e n a t u r e o f t h e documents, communications, or t h i n g s not produced t h a t i s s u f f i c i e n t t o e n a b l e t h e demanding p a r t y to contest the claim.'" 987 So. 2d a t 547-50. 18 1120229 The i s s u e privilege i n this l o g were The p l a i n t i f f s the documents. Mobile Gas prepared argue burden of p r o v i n g c a s e i s w h e t h e r t h e documents on t h e that that i n a n t i c i p a t i o n of Mobile litigation. Gas has n o t s a t i s f i e d i t s the workproduct p r i v i l e g e a p p l i e s to S p e c i f i c a l l y , they contend that the a f f i d a v i t s submitted i n support n o n p a r t y subpoena and motion of i t s objection f o r a p r o t e c t i v e order c o n t a i n any s p e c i f i c f a c t s i n s u p p o r t t h e r e o f . The to d i d not plaintiffs assert: "Mr. Downing's a f f i d a v i t a d m i t s t h a t McFadden was r e t a i n e d ' t o a s s i s t w i t h t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n a n d M o b i l e Gas's r e s p o n s e t o ADEM.' As t o McFadden's r o l e as a t r i a l consultant, Mr. Downing simply s t a t e s : ' S i n c e McFadden was r e t a i n e d , McFadden has a l s o s e r v e d as a c o n s u l t a n t t o M o b i l e Gas w i t h respect to the defense of t h i s a c t i o n ' There a r e no f a c t s w h i c h show t h a t McFadden was h i r e d b e c a u s e o f t h i s l i t i g a t i o n o r how i t has b e e n u s e d as a t r i a l c o n s u l t a n t i n a c a p a c i t y d i f f e r e n t f r o m i t s o r i g i n a l r e t e n t i o n . Mr. Downing s t a t e s t h a t he a n t i c i p a t e d l i t i g a t i o n on M a r c h 9, 2012, when M o b i l e Gas retained McFadden, because he met with Plaintiffs' counsel M a r c h 22, 2012 w e l l after McFadden h a d b e e n r e t a i n e d . While i m p l a u s i b l e at best, such does not establish a reasonable e x p e c t a t i o n o f l i t i g a t i o n a t t h e t i m e McFadden was r e t a i n e d as r e q u i r e d u n d e r Ex p a r t e S t a t e Farm Mut. A u t o I n s . Co., 761 So. 2d 1000, a t 1003 ( A l a . 2000) (mere f a c t t h a t p a r t y has r e t a i n e d c o u n s e l does n o t give r i s e to automatic reasonable expectation of litigation). 19 the 1120229 "Mr. W a l d r o p ' s a f f i d a v i t a d m i t s t h a t h i s f i r m was n o t h i r e d u n t i l a f t e r McFadden h a d a l r e a d y b e e n r e t a i n e d a n d h a d begun i t s i n v e s t i g a t i o n f o r M o b i l e Gas. T h e r e a r e no f a c t s i n t h i s a f f i d a v i t s p e a k i n g t o when o r why McFadden was r e t a i n e d ; clearly McFadden was n o t r e t a i n e d b y d e f e n s e c o u n s e l . " F i n a l l y , Mr. Newton's a f f i d a v i t s t a t e s that M o b i l e Gas r e t a i n e d McFadden f o r an ' i n v e s t i g a t i o n r e q u e s t e d b y ADEM.' Mr. Newton's a f f i d a v i t a l s o summarily states that i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e ADEM i n v e s t i g a t i o n , McFadden ' a l s o h a s p r o v i d e d s e r v i c e s as a l i t i g a t i o n c o n s u l t a n t ' w i t h o u t any f u r t h e r facts supporting t h i s claim. "These a f f i d a v i t s i n c l u d e no s p e c i f i c facts s u p p o r t i n g M o b i l e Gas's o b j e c t i o n . Instead these are c l a s s i c examples o f t h e type o f 'blanket c l a i m s ' t h a t w i l l n o t s u p p o r t a w o r k - p r o d u c t o b j e c t i o n . The trial court was w e l l w i t h i n i t s discretion i n f i n d i n g t h a t M o b i l e Gas h a d f a i l e d t o meet i t s burden of p r o v i d i n g s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n t i a r y support for i t s objection." Additionally, clear that business, on the p l a i n t i f f s contend McFadden was r e t a i n e d rather that "the evidence i s ' i n the regular than f o r purposes of l i t i g a t i o n . ' " course of They go to assert: " I n t h i s c a s e , M o b i l e Gas r e t a i n e d McFadden on M a r c h 9, 2 0 1 2 ; two weeks b e f o r e M o b i l e Gas h a d met w i t h P l a i n t i f f s ' c o u n s e l a n d a l m o s t a month b e f o r e s u i t was f i l e d . " B e c a u s e M o b i l e Gas r e t a i n e d McFadden b e f o r e b e i n g a p p r i s e d o f t h i s l a w s u i t , i t c o u l d n o t have retained McFadden i n reasonable anticipation thereof. M o b i l e Gas h i r e d McFadden t o p e r f o r m 20 1120229 n e c e s s a r y t e s t s , j u s t as a damaged p e r s o n m i g h t h i r e a doctor or contractor. "To be p r o t e c t e d t h e m a t e r i a l 'must have b e e n produced because o f t h a t p r o s p e c t o f l i t i g a t i o n and f o r no o t h e r p u r p o s e . ' H a r p e r v. A u t o - O w n e r s I n c . Co., 138 F.R.D. 655, 660 (N.D. I n d . 1991) (emphasis a d d e d ) ; D i v e r s i f i e d I n d u s . , I n c . v. M e r e d i t h , 572 F.2d 596, 604 ( 9 t h C i r . 1 9 7 7 ) . I n o t h e r w o r d s , ' t h e p r i m a r y m o t i v a t i n g purpose b e h i n d t h e c r e a t i o n o f a document o r i n v e s t i g a t i o n r e p o r t must be t o a i d i n possible future l i t i g a t i o n . ' Sims v . K n o l l w o o d P a r k Hosp. , 511 So. 2d 154, 158 ( A l a . 1987) ( c i t i n g B i n k s Manuf. Co. v. N a t ' l P r e s t o I n d u s . , I n c . , 709 F.2d 1109, 1119 ( 7 t h C i r . 1 9 8 3 ) ) . "When t h e m a t e r i a l i n q u e s t i o n i s p r o d u c e d i n the o r d i n a r y and r e g u l a r course of a party's b u s i n e s s , t h e m a t e r i a l i s o u t s i d e t h e scope o f t h e work-product d o c t r i n e and t h e r e f o r e s u b j e c t t o d i s c o v e r y . See, 8 C. W r i g h t & A. M i l l e r , F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e a n d P r o c e d u r e , § 2024 a t 198-99 ( 1 9 7 0 ) . M a t e r i a l c r e a t e d a s p a r t o f a 'more o r l e s s r o u t i n e i n v e s t i g a t i o n ' conducted ' i n the o r d i n a r y course of business' are not considered work-product. Janicker v. George Wash. U n i v . , 94 F.R.D. 648, 650 (D.D.C. 1982) . "The s i m p l e f a c t o f t h e m a t t e r i n t h i s c a s e i s t h a t M o b i l e Gas r e t a i n e d McFadden t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e m e r c a p t a n s i t u a t i o n g e n e r a l l y a n d as r e q u i r e d b y ADEM. Mobile Gas d i d n o t h i r e McFadden f o r l i t i g a t i o n p u r p o s e s , j u s t as an i n j u r e d p e r s o n does not h i r e a d o c t o r f o r ' l i t i g a t i o n purposes,' and i t is ludicrous to assert otherwise after the doctor has s e t a b o u t t o p r o v i d e n e c e s s a r y m e d i c a l c a r e . "The ADEM i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s a r o u t i n e r e g u l a t o r y proceeding. M o b i l e Gas v i e w e d i t as s u c h as i t p r o v i d e d a w e a l t h o f documents f r o m McFadden p r i o r t o t h e i s s u a n c e o f a s u b p o e n a d i r e c t l y t o McFadden. A r m b r e c h t J a c k s o n , M o b i l e Gas's t r i a l l a w y e r s , d i d 21 1120229 n o t h i r e McFadden. McFadden was a l r e a d y on t h e j o b , working on t h e ADEM investigation, when t h e A r m b r e c h t f i r m was h i r e d . M o b i l e Gas h a d h i r e d McFadden t o p e r f o r m a s i m i l a r e n v i r o n m e n t a l work f o r a number o f y e a r s . ... M o b i l e Gas p r o d u c e d t h e McFadden documents i t h a d b e c a u s e i t knew s u c h work was n o t p r o t e c t e d f r o m d i s c o v e r y . " (Respondents' In 2012, this brief, a t p p . 21-22.) case, Mobile to assist with Gas r e t a i n e d McFadden the investigation on M a r c h 9, ordered b y ADEM. F e d e r a l c o u r t s have r e c o g n i z e d t h a t t h e w o r k p r o d u c t privilege u n d e r R u l e 26, F e d . R. C i v . P., w o u l d a p p l y t o documents "even i f t h e y were p r e p a r e d i n a n t i c i p a t i o n o f litigation i n v o l v i n g o n l y government a g e n c i e s and were n o t p r e p a r e d i n a n t i c i p a t i o n o f litigation i n v o l v i n g p r i v a t e p a r t i e s ... b e c a u s e a p a r t y i n one a c t i o n may a s s e r t work p r o d u c t p r o t e c t i o n as t o documents prepared i n anticipation of another a c t i o n , p a r t i c u l a r l y where t h e two a c t i o n s a r e related. See F.T.C. v. G r o l i e r I n c . , 462 U.S. 19, 25, 103 S. C t . 2209, 76 L. E d . 2d 387 ( 1 9 8 3 ) ; M a e r t i n [ v. A r m s t r o n g W o r l d I n d u s t r i e s , I n c . , 172 F.R.D. 143,] 150 n. 3 [ ( D . N . J . 1 9 9 7 ) ] ; A r k w r i g h t M u t u a l I n s . Co. v . N a t i o n a l U n i o n F i r e I n s . Co. o f P i t t s b u r g h , P a . , [(No. 90 C i v . 7 8 1 1 , Sep. 16, 1 9 9 4 ) ] (S.D.N.Y. 1994) [ ( n o t r e p o r t e d i n F. S u p p . ) ] . " A t l a n t i c R i c h f i e l d Co. v. C u r r e n t C o n t r o l s , I n c . , n o t e 3 (No. 9 3 - C V - 0 9 5 0 E ( H ) , A u g . 2 1 , 1997) (S.D.N.Y. 1997) ( n o t r e p o r t e d in F. Supp.). 3 "We n o t e t h a t f e d e r a l d e c i s i o n s c o n s t r u i n g t h e F e d e r a l Rules of C i v i l Procedure are persuasive authority i n c o n s t r u i n g t h e Alabama R u l e s o f C i v i l Procedure because t h e 3 22 1120229 In M a r t i n v. M o n t f o r t , 150 F.R.D. 172 (D. C o l o . 1993), the U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t Court f o r t h e D i s t r i c t o f Colorado stated: "Rule 26(b)(3) of t h e F e d e r a l Rules of C i v i l Procedure contemplates a s e q u e n t i a l step approach t o r e s o l v i n g work p r o d u c t i s s u e s . F i r s t , the party seeking discovery must show that the subject documents o r t a n g i b l e t h i n g s a r e r e l e v a n t t o t h e subject matter i n v o l v e d i n the pending l i t i g a t i o n and a r e n o t p r i v i l e g e d . F e d . R. C i v . P. 2 6 ( b ) ( 1 ) . Once s u c h a s h o w i n g h a s b e e n made, t h e b u r d e n s h i f t s t o t h e p a r t y s e e k i n g p r o t e c t i o n t o show t h a t t h e r e q u e s t e d m a t e r i a l s were p r e p a r e d i n a n t i c i p a t i o n o f l i t i g a t i o n o r f o r t r i a l by o r f o r t h e p a r t y o r t h e party's attorney, consultant, surety, indemnitor, i n s u r e r o r a g e n t . F e d . R. C i v . P. 2 6 ( b ) ( 3 ) . Such a showing may be made b y a f f i d a v i t , deposition t e s t i m o n y , answers t o i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s , and t h e l i k e . I f t h e C o u r t c o n c l u d e s t h a t t h e i t e m s were p r e p a r e d i n a n t i c i p a t i o n of l i t i g a t i o n , t h e burden s h i f t s back t o t h e r e q u e s t i n g party t o show: (a) a substantial need f o r the materials i n the preparation of the party's case; a n d (b) t h e i n a b i l i t y w i t h o u t undue h a r d s h i p o f o b t a i n i n g t h e s u b s t a n t i a l e q u i v a l e n t o f t h e m a t e r i a l s by o t h e r means. F e d . R. C i v . P. 2 6 ( b ) ( 3 ) . F i n a l l y , even i f substantial need and unavailability are d e m o n s t r a t e d , t h e C o u r t must d i s t i n g u i s h b e t w e e n factual work product, and mental impressions, opinions, and c o n c l u s i o n s , f o r the l a t t e r are r a r e l y , i fever, subject t o discovery. See T o l e d o Edison Co. v. G A T e c h n o l o g i e s , 847 F.2d 3 3 5 , 339-340 ( 6 t h C i r . 1 9 8 8 ) ; I n r e A i r C r a s h D i s a s t e r a t D e t r o i t M e t r o p o l i t a n A i r p o r t , 130 F.R.D. 641, 643 (E.D. M i c h . 1 9 8 9 ) . A l a b a m a R u l e s were p a t t e r n e d a f t e r t h e F e d e r a l R u l e s . Borders v. C i t y o f H u n t s v i l l e , 875 So. 2d 1168 ( A l a . 2003) ." Ex p a r t e Novus U t i l s . , I n c . , 85 So. 3d 988, 996 ( A l a . 2011) . 23 1120229 "For purposes of the p e n d i n g m o t i o n , the C o u r t w i l l assume t h a t t h e t i m e and m o t i o n s t u d i e s have sufficient relevance to meet the general d i s c o v e r a b i l i t y r e q u i r e m e n t s o f Fed. R. C i v . P. 26. No c o n t e n t i o n has b e e n a d v a n c e d by M o n f o r t t h a t t h e s t u d i e s f a l l w i t h i n the a t t o r n e y - c l i e n t p r i v i l e g e . C o n s e q u e n t l y , t h e C o u r t w i l l b e g i n i t s i n q u i r y by addressing the q u e s t i o n of whether the time and m o t i o n s t u d i e s were p r e p a r e d i n a n t i c i p a t i o n of l i t i g a t i o n , and, t h e r e f o r e , p r o t e c t e d a t t o r n e y work product. " T h e r e i s no r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t l i t i g a t i o n have a c t u a l l y commenced i n o r d e r t o a s s e r t work p r o d u c t . On t h e o t h e r hand, t h e f a c t t h a t l i t i g a t i o n has commenced does n o t a u t o m a t i c a l l y b r i n g t h e work product doctrine into play. 8 Wright & M i l l e r , F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e & P r o c e d u r e § 2024, a t pp. 197-98. ' [ T ] h e t e s t s h o u l d be w h e t h e r , i n l i g h t o f the n a t u r e o f t h e document and t h e f a c t u a l s i t u a t i o n i n t h e p a r t i c u l a r c a s e , t h e document can f a i r l y be s a i d t o have b e e n p r e p a r e d o r o b t a i n e d b e c a u s e o f t h e p r o s p e c t o f l i t i g a t i o n . ' I d . a t 198. See a l s o Ownby v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 293 F. Supp. 989 (W.D. O k l a . 1968) ( e m p h a s i s [on ' p r o s p e c t ' ] a d d e d ) . "The a f f i d a v i t o f P. Kay N o r t o n , V i c e P r e s i d e n t and G e n e r a l C o u n s e l f o r M o n f o r t , r e v e a l s t h a t t h e t i m e and m o t i o n s t u d i e s were p e r f o r m e d a t her direction a f t e r she had been c o n t a c t e d by the Department of Labor r e g a r d i n g issues surrounding c e r t a i n a c t i v i t i e s of Monfort employees performed before and after their n o r m a l work day. The a f f i d a v i t s t a t e s t h a t ' [ i ] n l i g h t o f my contacts with Mr. Van Hook [the Department of Labor Compliance O f f i c e r ] , I believed that litigation m i g h t r e s u l t o v e r t h e i s s u e s ... and i n a n t i c i p a t i o n of such l i t i g a t i o n , I d i r e c t e d s p e c i f i c a l l y that c e r t a i n m a n a g e r i a l employees of M o n f o r t , Inc. g a t h e r information regarding the time spent by the Company's employees on these preliminary and postliminary activities.' Norton A f f . at 1-2. 24 1120229 " I n v e s t i g a t i o n b y a f e d e r a l a g e n c y p r e s e n t s more than a remote p r o s p e c t o f f u t u r e l i t i g a t i o n , and provides reasonable grounds for anticipating l i t i g a t i o n s u f f i c i e n t to t r i g g e r a p p l i c a t i o n ofthe work p r o d u c t d o c t r i n e . See, e . g . , K e n t C o r p o r a t i o n v. N a t i o n a l L a b o r R e l a t i o n s B o a r d , 530 F.2d 612, 623 ( 5 t h C i r . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 429 U.S. 920, 97 S. C t . 316, 50 L. E d . 2d 287 ( 1 9 7 6 ) ; I n r e LTV S e c u r i t i e s L i t i g a t i o n , 89 F.R.D. 595, 612 (N.D. Tex. 1 9 8 1 ) . A d d i t i o n a l l y , s t u d i e s or t e s t s conducted a f t e r a p a r t y i s aware o f p o t e n t i a l l i t i g a t i o n have b e e n h e l d t o be w i t h i n t h e s c o p e o f t h e work p r o d u c t immunity d o c t r i n e . In re A i r Crash D i s a s t e r a t D e t r o i t M e t r o p o l i t a n A i r p o r t , 130 F.R.D. a t 644; I n t e r s t a t e P r o d u c t i o n C r e d i t A s s ' n v. F i r e m a n ' s Fund Ins. Co., 128 F.R.D. 273 (D. Or. 1989) . A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e e v i d e n t i a r y r e c o r d and t h e case l a w amply s u p p o r t M o n f o r t ' s c l a i m t h a t t h e t i m e a n d m o t i o n s t u d i e s c o n s t i t u t e work p r o d u c t . " 150 F.R.D. a t 172-73 Casualty 28, response party" added). & S u r e t y Co. v. A l a b a m a Gas C o r p . , 2012] court, (some e m p h a s i s So. 3d to a that, letter , certified from the [Ms. 1110346, Dec. ( A l a . 2012) ( c o n c l u d i n g , i n question under Alabama Cf. Travelers from a federal law, a " p o t e n t i a l l y Environmental district responsible Protection Agency p u r s u a n t t o Comprehensive E n v i r o n m e n t a l Response Compensation and Liability "suit" Act provisions requirement insurance under was s u f f i c i e n t comprehensive policies). In h i s a f f i d a v i t , Downing s t a t e d : 25 to s a t i s f y the general-liability 1120229 "6. M o b i l e Gas r e t a i n e d McFadden E n g i n e e r i n g , I n c . ('McFadden') b y t e l e p h o n e c a l l on M a r c h 9, 2012 t o a s s i s t w i t h t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n a n d M o b i l e Gas's r e s p o n s e t o ADEM. McFadden h a s p r e p a r e d p l a n s f o r t h e work f o r s u b m i s s i o n t o ADEM ( e . g . , t h e M a r c h 30, 2012 Scope o f W o r k ) , p e r f o r m e d c e r t a i n a s p e c t s o f the investigation, including collecting data, i n t e r f a c e d w i t h ADEM, a n d p r e p a r e d r e p o r t s t h a t were s u b m i t t e d t o ADEM on b e h a l f o f M o b i l e Gas. Since M a r c h 9, 2012 McFadden h a s c o n s u l t e d w i t h M o b i l e Gas w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n a n d M o b i l e Gas's response t o ADEM. S i n c e McFadden was r e t a i n e d , McFadden a l s o h a s s e r v e d as a c o n s u l t a n t t o M o b i l e Gas w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e d e f e n s e o f t h i s a c t i o n a n d the f o u r r e l a t e d a c t i o n s and t h e p r e p a r a t i o n o f t h i s a c t i o n and t h e f o u r r e l a t e d a c t i o n s f o r t r i a l . "7. Mobile Gas has produced McFadden's communications with ADEM, McFadden's reports s u b m i t t e d t o ADEM, a n d t h e u n d e r l y i n g d a t a s u b m i t t e d t o ADEM. M o b i l e Gas h a s n o t p r o d u c e d documents c r e a t e d b y McFadden i n a i d i n g M o b i l e Gas as a l i t i g a t i o n consultant. "8. When M o b i l e Gas r e t a i n e d McFadden on M a r c h 9, 2012, ADEM h a d c o n t a c t e d M o b i l e Gas a n d h a d demanded t h a t M o b i l e Gas c o n d u c t a groundwater i n v e s t i g a t i o n . As o f M a r c h 9, 2012, l i t i g a t i o n w i t h c e r t a i n o d o r c o m p l a i n a n t s was h i g h l y p r o b a b l e , w h i c h was c o n f i r m e d when I was c o n t a c t e d b y Mr. C o u r t n e y on M a r c h 12, 2012. F u r t h e r , i t i s n o t i n M o b i l e Gas's o r d i n a r y c o u r s e o f b u s i n e s s t o u n d e r t a k e t h e t y p e o f i n v e s t i g a t i o n r e q u i r e d b y ADEM o r have an environmental c o n s u l t a n t produce the types of documents c r e a t e d b y McFadden." (Emphasis added.) Additionally, i nhis affidavit, Waldrop s t a t e d : "4. M o b i l e Gas f i r s t e n g a g e d A r m b r e c h t J a c k s o n , LLP t o r e p r e s e n t i t i n t h i s a c t i o n on o r a b o u t A p r i l 26 1120229 6, 2012. S i n c e A r m b r e c h t J a c k s o n was e n g a g e d b y M o b i l e Gas t o r e p r e s e n t i t i n t h i s a c t i o n , I have communicated with McFadden Engineering, Inc. ('McFadden') r e g a r d i n g t h e A l a b a m a D e p a r t m e n t o f E n v i r o n m e n t a l Management ('ADEM') i n v e s t i g a t i o n a n d t h e a b o v e - s t y l e d a c t i o n . A f t e r b e i n g r e t a i n e d on o r a b o u t A p r i l 6, 2 0 1 2 , I s u b s e q u e n t l y became i n c h a r g e of the investigation r e q u i r e d b y ADEM a n d t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n connection w i t h the defense of t h i s case and t h e r e l a t e d c a s e s . "5. The McFadden documents s o u g h t b y P l a i n t i f f s i n c l u d e documents a n d c o m m u n i c a t i o n s g e n e r a t e d b y McFadden on b e h a l f o f M o b i l e Gas i n r e s p o n s e t o ADEM's demands a n d i n d e f e n s e o f t h e l i t i g a t i o n . "6. Mobile Gas has produced McFadden's communications with ADEM, McFadden's reports s u b m i t t e d t o ADEM, a n d t h e u n d e r l y i n g d a t a s u b m i t t e d t o ADEM. A l t e r n a t i v e l y , M o b i l e Gas h a s n o t p r o d u c e d documents c r e a t e d b y McFadden i n i t s r o l e a s a l i t i g a t i o n c o n s u l t a n t t o M o b i l e Gas." (Emphasis added.) Finally, i n his affidavit, Newton s t a t e d : "3. On M a r c h 9, 2 0 1 2 , M o b i l e Gas ... c o n t a c t e d me b y t e l e p h o n e t o r e q u e s t McFadden's a s s i s t a n c e i n a s u b s u r f a c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n r e q u e s t e d b y [ADEM] t o c o n f i r m o r deny t h e p r e s e n c e o f M e r c a p t a n i n t h e subsurface s o i l or groundwater i n t h e v i c i n i t y o f a r e l e a s e o f M e r c a p t a n i n June 2008 on p r o p e r t y owned by G u l f S o u t h P i p e l i n e Company, L.P. "4. S i n c e M a r c h 9, 2 0 1 2 , McFadden h a s a c t e d a s a c o n s u l t a n t t o M o b i l e Gas w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n a n d M o b i l e Gas's r e s p o n s e t o ADEM's demands and a l s o has p r o v i d e d s e r v i c e s as a l i t i g a t i o n consultant with respect to this action (and t h e f o u r r e l a t e d a c t i o n s ) ( t h e ' l i t i g a t i o n ' ) . 27 1120229 "5. McFadden's documents include documents p r e p a r e d b y McFadden on b e h a l f o f M o b i l e Gas b o t h w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n a n d M o b i l e Gas's r e s p o n s e t o ADEM a n d w i t h r e s p e c t t o M o b i l e Gas's defense of the l i t i g a t i o n . " Based that on t h e s e t h e documents affidavits, as t o w h i c h were p r e p a r e d o r o b t a i n e d The plaintiffs documents claim Mobile Gas h a s e s t a b l i s h e d i t was c l a i m i n g a privilege i n a n t i c i p a t i o n of l i t i g a t i o n . contend that, even i f the requested d i d c o n s t i t u t e w o r k p r o d u c t , M o b i l e Gas w a i v e d a n y of workproduct p r i v i l e g e because i t had previously p r o d u c e d v o l u m i n o u s documents p r e p a r e d b y McFadden r e l a t e d t o t h e ADEM i n v e s t i g a t i o n . product doctrine privileges, U.S. "The p r i v i l e g e d e r i v e d f r o m t h e work- i s not absolute. i t may be w a i v e d . " United Like other States qualified v. N o b l e s , 422 225, 239 (1975) . "Work p r o d u c t p r o t e c t i o n may be w a i v e d , a n d t h e p a r t y i n v o k i n g t h e p r i v i l e g e must p r o v e t h a t i t h a s not waived t h e p r o t e c t i o n . Eden I s l e M a r i n a , I n c . v. U n i t e d States, 89 F e d . C l . 480, 503 (2009) ( c i t i n g E v e r g r e e n T r a d i n g , LLC v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 80 Fed. C l . 122, 127 ( 2 0 0 7 ) ) . W a i v e r o c c u r s when a p a r t y d i s c l o s e s m a t e r i a l ' " i n a way i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h keeping i t from t h e a d v e r s a r y , " ' E v e r g r e e n , 80 Fed. C l . a t 133 ( q u o t i n g U n i t e d S t a t e s v. Mass. I n s t . o f T e c h . , 129 F.3d 681, 687 ( 1 s t C i r . 1 9 9 7 ) ) , s u c h as u s i n g m a t e r i a l a s a b a s i s f o r an a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e , i d . a t 130." 28 1120229 Salem F i n . , Inc. v. United States, 102 Fed. C l . 793, 796 (2012). In nonparty their response to Mobile subpoena, the p l a i n t i f f s Gas's objection to asserted: "4. On June 1, 2012, M o b i l e Gas produced thousands of pages of documents generated by McFadden. M o s t o f t h o s e documents were p r e v i o u s l y p r o v i d e d by McFadden t o t h e A l a b a m a D e p a r t m e n t o f Environmental Management, EPA, and otherwise publicly distributed. J u s t l a s t week, M o b i l e Gas produced McFadden's latest 'Preliminary I n v e s t i g a t i v e R e p o r t ' d a t e d J u l y 27, 2012, e x c e r p t s of w h i c h a r e a t t a c h e d h e r e t o as E x h i b i t B. In t h a t r e p o r t , McFadden c o n c l u d e d t h a t mercaptan b e i n g e m i t t e d i n t o the atmosphere from the ' s p r i n g s ' adjacent to the W h i s t l e r J u n c t i o n f a c i l i t y flowed d o w n - g r a d i e n t f r o m t h e 2008 M o b i l e Gas m e r c a p t a n spill site. This conclusion was based on c o r r e s p o n d i n g m e r c a p t a n r e a d i n g s f o u n d a t t h e 2008 s p i l l s i t e , down-gradient from the s p i l l s i t e , i n the ' s p r i n g s ' which emit the mercaptan i n t o the a t m o s p h e r e , and i n t h e 'pond' j u s t d o w n s t r e a m f r o m the s p r i n g s . Despite t h i s overwhelming evidence from i t s own 'trial consultant,' Mobile Gas c o n t i n u e s t o 'deny' t h a t i t i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e m e r c a p t a n n u i s a n c e w h i c h s t i l l e x i s t s (DAILY) i n t h e E i g h t M i l e community. "5. E x a m p l e s o f McFadden d o c u m e n t a t i o n ( a t t a c h e d as E x h i b i t C) p r e v i o u s l y p r o d u c e d by M o b i l e Gas on June 1, 2012 i n c l u d e : "(a) I n t e r n a l e m a i l s and documents b e t w e e n Mobile Gas and McFadden relating directly to McFadden's i n v e s t i g a t i o n work "(b) McFadden's i n v e s t i g a t i o n ... ; billing 29 records for its the 1120229 "(c) D r a f t s o f t h e Scope o f Work p r o v i d e d t o M o b i l e Gas a n d ADEM ... ; "(d) F i n a l Scope o f Work McFadden a n d M o b i l e Gas ... ; Agreement "(e) Documents relating to m o n i t o r i n g a n d i n v e s t i g a t i o n ... ; McFadden between McFadden's a i r "(f) S a f e t y meeting attendance sheets p r o v i d i n g names a n d e m p l o y e r s f o r a l l i n a t t e n d a n c e ... ; "(g) I n t e r n a l M o b i l e Gas n o t e s on i t s m e e t i n g s with McFadden r e g a r d i n g McFadden's Eight Mile p o l l u t i o n i n v e s t i g a t i o n ... ; "(h) MORE -- t h e f o r e g o i n g a r e j u s t e x a m p l e s o f McFadden documents p r o d u c e d b y M o b i l e Gas -- t h e r e a r e l i t e r a l l y t h o u s a n d s o f s u c h documents i n t h e M o b i l e Gas p r o d u c t i o n . M o b i l e Gas d e f e n s e c o u n s e l i s n o t a r e c i p i e n t on a n y o f t h e s c o r e s o f e m a i l s b e t w e e n McFadden, M o b i l e Gas, a n d ADEM. "6. M o s t a l l o f t h e s e documents were made ' p u b l i c ' v i a p u b l i c a t i o n t o ADEM, e t c . C l e a r l y , M o b i l e Gas d i d n o t v i e w McFadden a s a 'trial e x p e r t , ' o t h e r w i s e i t w o u l d n o t have p r o d u c e d such v o l u m i n o u s d o c u m e n t a t i o n r e g a r d i n g McFadden's work. To t h e e x t e n t McFadden i s a ' t r i a l e x p e r t , ' M o b i l e Gas h a s ' w a i v e d ' a n y p r i v i l e g e o r work p r o d u c t r e s t r i c t i o n on McFadden's r e c o r d s . " In hisaffidavit, had produced reports Downing a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t M o b i l e Gas McFadden's c o m m u n i c a t i o n s w i t h ADEM, McFadden's t h a t had been s u b m i t t e d t o ADEM, a n d t h e u n d e r l y i n g d a t a t h a t h a d b e e n s u b m i t t e d t o ADEM. that "Mobile Gas has n o t produced 30 However, he a l s o s t a t e d documents created by 1120229 McFadden i n aiding Mobile Gas a s a l i t i g a t i o n c o n s u l t a n t . " F u r t h e r , i n h i s a f f i d a v i t , W a l d r o p s t a t e d t h a t M o b i l e Gas h a d produced "McFadden's c o m m u n i c a t i o n s w i t h ADEM, McFadden's r e p o r t s s u b m i t t e d t o ADEM, a n d t h e u n d e r l y i n g d a t a s u b m i t t e d t o ADEM. A l t e r n a t i v e l y , M o b i l e Gas h a s n o t p r o d u c e d d o c u m e n t s c r e a t e d b y McFadden i n i t s r o l e as a l i t i g a t i o n c o n s u l t a n t t o M o b i l e G a s . " (Emphasis submitted, added.) Mobile correspondence Additionally, Gas stated i n the p r i v i l e g e that there were a n d e - m a i l s i n McFadden's f i l e copies that log of reflected c o m m u n i c a t i o n s t o a n d f r o m e m p l o y e e s o f ADEM a n d t o a n d f r o m representatives o f G u l f South a n d an e n t i t y named Boardwalk LLP a n d t h a t M o b i l e Gas d i d n o t c o n t e n d t h a t t h o s e i t e m s were p r o t e c t e d from d i s c o v e r y . their response F i n a l l y , as t h e p l a i n t i f f s n o t e d i n to Mobile Gas's objection, most of the documents M o b i l e Gas h a d p r o d u c e d h a d a l r e a d y b e e n made p u b l i c by p u b l i c a t i o n t o ADEM. B a s e d on t h e f o r e g o i n g , i t does n o t a p p e a r t h a t M o b i l e Gas h a s t r e a t e d t h e documents f o r w h i c h i t c l a i m s a p r i v i l e g e i n a manner i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h k e e p i n g them f r o m an a d v e r s a r y . See S a l e m F i n . , I n c . , 102 Fed. C l . a t 796. B e c a u s e M o b i l e Gas s a t i s f i e d i t s b u r d e n o f d e m o n s t r a t i n g that the requested documents 31 constituted workproduct, the 1120229 burden s h i f t e d t o t h e p l a i n t i f f s t o demonstrate a s u b s t a n t i a l n e e d f o r t h e u n d i s c l o s e d documents a n d t o show t h a t t h e y were "unable without undue hardship to obtain e q u i v a l e n t o f t h e m a t e r i a l s b y o t h e r means." the plaintiffs merely asserted i n their the substantial In t h i s response regard, t o Mobile Gas's o b j e c t i o n : "'Exceptional circumstances' c a n a r i s e when an e x p e r t has unique a c c e s s t o f a c t u a l i n f o r m a t i o n , s u c h a s where t h e e x p e r t p e r f o r m e d t e s t s u n d e r c i r c u m s t a n c e s where t h e o p p o s i n g p a r t i e s do n o t have access t o such i n f o r m a t i o n . P l a i n t i f f s obviously c a n n o t o b t a i n t h e d a t a o b t a i n e d b y McFadden -- s o i l t e s t s , a i r t e s t s , g r o u n d w a t e r t e s t s , e t c . on M o b i l e Gas/Gulf South p r o p e r t i e s s i n c e p r e - s u i t dates." However, i n h i s a f f i d a v i t , Mobile Waldrop s p e c i f i c a l l y stated Gas h a d p r o d u c e d "McFadden's c o m m u n i c a t i o n s w i t h ADEM, McFadden's r e p o r t s s u b m i t t e d t o ADEM, a n d t h e u n d e r l y i n g s u b m t i t t e d t o ADEM." (Emphasis added.) Court with copies not substantial this of laboratory reports that include r e s u l t s t e s t i n g from v a r i o u s satisfied data Additionally, i n their a t t a c h m e n t s t o t h e i r b r i e f , t h e p l a i n t i f f s have p r o v i d e d on that their samples. burden Thus, t h e p l a i n t i f f s of establishing that they n e e d o f t h e documents a s t o w h i c h M o b i l e claiming a privilege. II. 32 have have Gas i s 1120229 Mobile Gas complied with Ala. R. expert. also the C i v . P., argues procedures that set the plaintiffs forth i n Rule for obtaining discovery Specifically, Mobile Gas have not 26(b) ( 5 ) ( B ) , from a n o n t e s t i f y i n g contends t h a t , because i t r e t a i n e d McFadden i n a n t i c i p a t i o n o f l i t i g a t i o n and b e c a u s e i t has not designated p l a i n t i f f s may McFadden as C i v . P., expert at trial, the o b t a i n d i s c o v e r y f r o m McFadden o n l y p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 26(b) ( 5 ) ( B ) , A l a . R. C i v . P.; R. an t h a t R u l e 26(b) ( 5 ) ( B ) , A l a . r e q u i r e s a showing of e x c e p t i o n a l circumstances; and t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f s have n o t made a s h o w i n g o f circumstances. Rule 26(b)(5)(B), A l a . R. exceptional C i v . P., provides, in pertinent part: "(5) T r i a l P r e p a r a t i o n : E x p e r t s . D i s c o v e r y of f a c t s known and o p i n i o n s h e l d by e x p e r t s , otherwise d i s c o v e r a b l e under the p r o v i s i o n s of s u b d i v i s i o n ( b ) ( 1 ) o f t h i s r u l e and a c q u i r e d o r d e v e l o p e d i n a n t i c i p a t i o n of l i t i g a t i o n or f o r t r i a l , may be o b t a i n e d o n l y as f o l l o w s : " "(B) A p a r t y may d i s c o v e r f a c t s known o r o p i n i o n s h e l d by an e x p e r t who has b e e n r e t a i n e d , s p e c i a l l y e m p l o y e d o r a s s i g n e d by another p a r t y i n a n t i c i p a t i o n of l i t i g a t i o n o r p r e p a r a t i o n f o r t r i a l and who i s not e x p e c t e d t o be c a l l e d as a w i t n e s s at 33 1120229 t r i a l , o n l y as p r o v i d e d i n R u l e 35(b) [ ] o r upon a s h o w i n g o f e x c e p t i o n a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s under which i t i s i m p r a c t i c a b l e f o r the p a r t y s e e k i n g d i s c o v e r y t o o b t a i n f a c t s or opinions on t h e same s u b j e c t by other means." 4 McFadden trial. Mobile has not been Further, Gas retained as we satisfied McFadden in designated discussed as i n Part be allowed expert anticipation of to discover facts C i v . P., or o p i n i o n s the at opinion, t h a t i t had litigation. Thus, plaintiffs f r o m McFadden o n l y "upon a s h o w i n g o f e x c e p t i o n a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s it witness I of t h i s i t s burden of e s t a b l i s h i n g p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 2 6 ( b ) ( 5 ) ( B ) , A l a . R. will an under which i s i m p r a c t i c a b l e f o r the p a r t y seeking d i s c o v e r y to o b t a i n f a c t s or o p i n i o n s on t h e same s u b j e c t by other means." "Under R u l e 2 6 ( b ) ( 4 ) ( B ) , the p a r t y seeking d i s c o v e r y from the n o n - t e s t i f y i n g e x p e r t c o n s u l t e d in anticipation of l i t i g a t i o n ' c a r r i e s a heavy burden i n demonstrating the e x i s t e n c e of e x c e p t i o n a l circumstances.' A g e r [v. J a n e C. S t o r m o n t Hosp. & T r a i n i n g Sch. for Nurses], 622 F.2d [496,] 503 [ ( 1 0 t h C i r . 1980)] ( i n t e r n a l q u o t a t i o n s omitted). Exceptional circumstances a r e shown i f t h e p a r t y seeking discovery i s unable to obtain equivalent i n f o r m a t i o n f r o m o t h e r s o u r c e s . E l i a s e n v. H a m i l t o n , 111 F.R.D. 396, 400 (N.D. I l l . 1986) (internal q u o t a t i o n o m i t t e d ) . The p a r t y s e e k i n g d i s c o v e r y may R u l e 3 5 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., p r o v i d e s f o r o b t a i n i n g d i s c o v e r y of a r e p o r t from a p h y s i c a l or mental examination of a p e r s o n t h a t i s c o n d u c t e d p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 3 5 ( a ) , A l a . R. C i v . P.; t h u s , i t does n o t a p p l y t o t h i s c a s e . 4 34 1120229 meet t h i s e x c e p t i o n a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s s t a n d a r d i n one o f two ways. F i r s t , t h e m o v i n g p a r t y may show t h a t the o b j e c t o r c o n d i t i o n a t i s s u e i s d e s t r o y e d o r has deteriorated after the n o n - t e s t i f y i n g expert observes i t b u t b e f o r e t h e moving p a r t y ' s e x p e r t has an o p p o r t u n i t y t o o b s e r v e i t . See D i s i d o r e v. M a i l C o n t r a c t o r s o f Am., I n c . , 196 F.R.D. 410, 417 (D. Kan. 20 0 0 ) ; H a r t f o r d F i r e I n s . [ v . P u r e A i r on t h e L a k e L t d . P ' s h i p ] , 154 F.R.D. [202,] 207 [(N.D. I n d . 1993)]. S e c o n d , t h e m o v i n g p a r t y may show t h e r e a r e no o t h e r a v a i l a b l e e x p e r t s i n t h e same f i e l d o r subject area. See B a i l e y v. M e i s t e r B r a u , I n c . , 57 F.R.D. 1 1 , 14 (N.D. I l l . 1972) ( p a r t y seeking d i s c o v e r y must p r o v e t h a t o p i n i o n s b y o t h e r s on t h e subject are unavailable)." Spearman I n d u s . , I n c . v. S t . P a u l F i r e & M a r i n e I n s . Co., 128 F. Supp. 2 d 1148, 1151-52 (N.D. I l l . 2 0 0 1 ) . In t h i s case, t h e p l a i n t i f f s such e x c e p t i o n a l circumstances. I of t h i s opinion, have n o t made a n y s h o w i n g o f F u r t h e r , as we n o t e d i n P a r t the p l a i n t i f f s have n o t e s t a b l i s h e d t h e y have s u b s t a n t i a l n e e d o f t h e documents as t o w h i c h Gas i s claiming a privilege. Because t h e p l a i n t i f f s that Mobile d i d not s a t i s f y t h e i r b u r d e n u n d e r R u l e 2 6 ( b ) ( 5 ) ( B ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., t h e y were n o t e n t i t l e d t o o b t a i n d i s c o v e r y o f a n y f a c t s known to or opinions h e l d b y McFadden. See Ex p a r t e C r y e r , 2d 239 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) . Conclusion 35 814 So. 1120229 B a s e d on t h e f o r e g o i n g , M o b i l e the trial the workproduct Gas h a s e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t court exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n privilege and e n t e r e d when i t d i s r e g a r d e d an o r d e r compelling M o b i l e Gas t o p r o d u c e t h e documents i n c l u d e d i n t h e p r i v i l e g e log a n d when i t d e n i e d order. to a protective listed court. the w r i t its Gas's m o t i o n f o r a p r o t e c t i v e Thus, M o b i l e Gas h a s e s t a b l i s h e d a c l e a r documents trial Mobile regarding on t h e p r i v i l e g e right the production of the l o g i t submitted to the A c c o r d i n g l y , we g r a n t M o b i l e Gas's p e t i t i o n f o r o f mandamus a n d d i r e c t October documents order legal 12, 2012, o r d e r the t r i a l compelling included i n the p r i v i l e g e court to s e t aside the production l o g and t o order those documents p r o t e c t e d f r o m d i s c o v e r y . PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED. Stuart, Bolin, Parker, Murdock, Main, and Bryan, J . , concurs i n the result. Moore, C . J . , d i s s e n t s . 36 of J J . , concur. 1120229 MOORE, C h i e f J u s t i c e (dissenting). I r e s p e c t f u l l y d i s s e n t from t h e m a j o r i t y o p i n i o n because, f o r the reasons expressed Ocwen Federal (Moore, relief proceedings. that As I i n d i c a t e d "'[o]rdinarily, regarding ago, ( A l a . 2003) in the context this Court not review D o r s e y T r a i l e r s , I n c . , 397 So. 2d 98, 102 that "mandamus will of court (quoting 103 (emphasis petitioners As I t does i n t h i s c a s e have met t h a t only Ex parte In i n those 397 So. 2d not appear that the standard. I w r o t e i n Ocwen: " T h i s C o u r t i t s e l f r e s t r i c t t h e abuse o f u s i n g p e t i t i o n s in rulings the Court issued the w r i t , i t noted i s s u e t o compel d i s c o v e r y added). that (Ala. 1981)). c a s e s where a c l e a r abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n i s shown." at discovery announced trial 872 So. 2d a t 817 Dorsey T r a i l e r s , although I do n o t b e l i e v e i n Ocwen, t h e r e was a t i m e , n o t when [ i t ] would discovery.'" i n Ex p a r t e i n the r e s u l t ) , i s proper long writing So. 2d 810, 817 FSB, 872 C.J., concurring mandamus all Bank, i n my s p e c i a l s h o u l d be a b l e t o for a writ o f mandamus d i s c o v e r y m a t t e r s by r e s t r i c t i n g t h e use o f e x t r a o r d i n a r y writs to extraordinary instances 37 a n d b y r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t an 1120229 a p p e a l i s i n a l m o s t a l l c a s e s an a d e q u a t e remedy." 872 So. 2d a t 818. I s t a n d by t h a t assertion. 38
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
