Ewing v. USA Water Ski, Inc.
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.
USA Water Ski, Inc. sought a writ of mandamus to direct the trial court to vacate its discovery order compelling the production of a report that it deemed privileged under the work-product doctrine. Finding that USA Water Ski adequately explained that it's hired expert's post-incident report was prepared because of prospective litigation, the Supreme Court found USA Water Ski had shown the trial court exceeded its discretion in ordering production of the report. Accordingly the Court granted the petition and issued the writ.
Download PDF
REL: 06/21/2013 Notice: T h i s 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 ( ( 3 3 4 ) 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 1120744 Ex p a r t e USA Water S k i , Inc. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In r e : Joy King Ewing f / k / a Joy King, as p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f the e s t a t e o f Stewart A r t h u r B i e b e r , and Rachel K. B i e b e r v. C o l o n e l Biggs Water S k i Show Team e t a l . ) (Montgomery C i r c u i t Court, CV-12-900283) STUART, Justice. 1120744 USA Water S k i , I n c . , mandamus order directing compelling privileged p e t i t i o n s t h i s Court 1 the t r i a l court the production under t o vacate f o ra writ of i t s discovery o f a r e p o r t t h a t i t says i s the work-product doctrine. We grant the p e t i t i o n and i s s u e t h e w r i t . Facts Colonel Biggs Water S k i Show Team ( " C o l o n e l Biggs") i s a member o f USA Water S k i , the n a t i o n a l governing organized water competitive skiing body f o r i n the United States. S t e w a r t A r t h u r B i e b e r was a s k i e r f o r C o l o n e l B i g g s . 17, 2010, w h i l e Biggs skiing backwards and b a r e f o o t p r a c t i c e a t Gateway collided with Park Lake On A p r i l at a Colonel i n Montgomery, Bieber a s t a t i o n a r y dock and s u f f e r e d i n j u r i e s that caused h i s death. On F e b r u a r y personal Bieber 29, 2012, J o y K i n g E w i n g f / k / a J o y K i n g , as representative estate, (hereinafter referred to collectively f i l e d a wrongful-death Ski, of Bieber's and Rachel as K. "Ewing"), a c t i o n a g a i n s t C o l o n e l B i g g s , USA W a t e r a n d t h e f o l l o w i n g i n d i v i d u a l members o f C o l o n e l Biggs: The name o f t h i s e n t i t y a l s o a p p e a r s i n t h e m a t e r i a l s b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t as "U.S.A. W a t e r S k i , I n c . " 1 2 1120744 Michael behind safety Robinson, the driver a t t h e time observer negligence of the boat Bieber of the accident, in the boat. and J o e l The was Langer, the complaint and wantonness i n o p e r a t i n g t h e boat, p r o v i d e adequate p r o t e c t i o n t o B i e b e r , and f a i l u r e the Marine P o l i c e of t h e s k i p r a c t i c e , During skiing alleged failure to to notify as r e q u i r e d b y l a w . d i s c o v e r y , USA Water S k i p r o d u c e d t o E w i n g a 2 4 - page p r i v i l e g e l o g , t h e l a s t i t e m on w h i c h i s d e s c r i b e d as "correspondence f r o m Mark N e u b e r g e r t o J.R. W i l s o n regarding Stewart Bieber's i n c i d e n t . Jerry Leiting was c a r b o n - c o p i e d on t h e c o m m u n i c a t i o n . Neuberger, W i l s o n , a n d L e i t i n g a r e a l l members o f USA W a t e r Ski. Mr. W i l s o n a s k e d Mr. N e u b e r g e r t o p r e p a r e t h e correspondence due, i n p a r t , t o h i s ( M r . W i l s o n ' s ) b e l i e f t h a t t h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t l i k e l i h o o d a l a w s u i t w o u l d be f i l e d f o l l o w i n g S t e w a r t ' s death. T h u s , we have w i t h h e l d t h i s c o r r e s p o n d e n c e . Please see a f f i d a v i t f r o m Mr. W i l s o n ( a t t a c h e d ) . " In t h e a f f i d a v i t W i l s o n averred: " 1 . My name i s J o h n R o b e r t (J.R.) W i l s o n . I am o v e r t h e age o f n i n e t e e n y e a r s , a n d I have p e r s o n a l knowledge o f t h e f a c t s a s s e r t e d h e r e i n . "2. I am a U.S.A. W a t e r S k i L i f e Member a n d was i n A p r i l 2010. "3. I n A p r i l 2010, I was C h a i r m a n o f U.S.A. W a t e r S k i , I n c . ' s N a t i o n a l S k i Show A s s o c i a t i o n (NSSA) D r i v e r s ' C o m m i t t e e . "4. informed By Monday, of the A p r i l A p r i l 19, 2010, I h a d b e e n 17, 2010, i n c i d e n t i n v o l v i n g 3 1120744 Stewart Bieber. My u n d e r s t a n d i n g as o f A p r i l 1 9 t h was S t e w a r t B i e b e r s t r u c k a d o c k w h i l e w a t e r s k i i n g backwards. My u n d e r s t a n d i n g was he was p r a c t i c i n g h i s show r u n a t t h e t i m e o f t h e i n c i d e n t . "5. I a s k e d Mark N e u b e r g e r t o p r e p a r e a r e p o r t concerning Stewart Bieber's incident. Mr. Neuberger's r e p o r t , dated April 19, 2010, was f o r w a r d e d t o me. J e r r y L e i t i n g was c o p i e d on t h e report. "6. I n A p r i l 2010, Mr. N e u b e r g e r was C h i e f D r i v e r E x a m i n e r f o r U.S.A. Water S k i ' s N a t i o n a l Show Ski A s s o c i a t i o n ' s Southern Region. I n A p r i l 2010, Mr. L e i t i n g was P r e s i d e n t o f U.S.A. Water S k i ' s N a t i o n a l Show S k i A s s o c i a t i o n . "7. In l i g h t of the serious nature of the i n c i d e n t as r e p o r t e d t o me, I e x p e c t e d Mr. B i e b e r ' s f a m i l y t o f i l e a l a w s u i t even though I d i d n o t b e l i e v e U.S.A. W a t e r S k i , t h e N a t i o n a l Show S k i A s s o c i a t i o n o r C o l o n e l B i g g ' s [ s i c ] Water S k i Show Team h a d done a n y t h i n g i m p r o p e r . F u r t h e r m o r e , my f o r m e r w i f e i s an a t t o r n e y . B a s e d on my f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h the l e g a l system (through c o n v e r s a t i o n s w i t h h e r o v e r t h e y e a r s ) , I b e l i e v e d i t was l i k e l y t h a t Mr. B i e b e r ' s f a m i l y w o u l d f i l e a l a w s u i t . "8. I a s k e d Mr. N e u b e r g e r t o p r e p a r e t h e r e p o r t i n an e f f o r t t o a s s i s t i n t h e d e f e n s e o f an e x p e c t e d lawsuit. N e i t h e r I n o r anyone a t U.S.A. Water S k i r o u t i n e l y perform i n v e s t i g a t i o n s , prepare i n c i d e n t r e p o r t s nor i n t e r v i e w witnesses i n the normal course of b u s i n e s s . "9. I r e q u e s t e d t h e r e p o r t w i t h t h e e x p e c t a t i o n t h a t i t w o u l d be c o n f i d e n t i a l a n d s h a r e d o n l y w i t h attorneys i n the court of defending an e x p e c t e d lawsuit. In fact, the report i t s e l f indicates that it should be kept confidential between Mr. N e u b e r g e r , Mr. W i l s o n a n d Mr. L e i t i n g , a l l o f w h i c h a r e U.S.A. W a t e r S k i members." 4 1120744 Ewing incident moved t o c o m p e l report, "correspondence." production referred to in of Neuberger's the privilege post- l o g as I n h e r m o t i o n , E w i n g a r g u e d t h a t USA W a t e r Ski f a i l e d t o c a r r y i t s burden of e s t a b l i s h i n g t h a t the r e p o r t met the elements of the work-product p r i v i l e g e . responded, maintaining s u f f i c i e n t evidence that Wilson's USA W a t e r S k i affidavit provided t h a t N e u b e r g e r ' s p o s t - i n c i d e n t r e p o r t was c r e a t 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 and, c o n s e q u e n t l y , it was p r i v i l e g e d conducting parties, under a hearing the t r i a l and r e v i e w i n g court granted production of the report. for the work-product doctrine. the b r i e f s that After filed by t h e Ewing's motion and ordered USA W a t e r S k i p e t i t i o n s t h i s Court a w r i t o f mandamus d i r e c t i n g t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o v a c a t e i t s order. Standard o f Review "'Mandamus i s an e x t r a o r d i n a r y remedy and w i l l be g r a n t e d o n l y when t h e r e i s " ( 1 ) a c l e a r l e g a l right i n the p e t i t i o n e r to t h e o r d e r s o u g h t , (2) an i m p e r a t i v e d u t y upon t h e r e s p o n d e n t t o p e r f o r m , a c c o m p a n i e d by a r e f u s a l t o do s o , (3) t h e l a c k o f a n o t h e r a d e q u a t e remedy, a n d (4) p r o p e r l y invoked j u r i s d i c t i o n of the court." Ex p a r t e A l f a b , I n c . , 586 So. 2d 889, 891 (Ala. 1991) . I n Ex p a r t e Ocwen F e d e r a l Bank, FSB, 872 So. 2d 810 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) , t h i s C o u r t a n n o u n c e d t h a t i t w o u l d no l o n g e r 5 1120744 review discovery orders pursuant to extraordinary writs. However, we d i d i d e n t i f y four circumstances i n which a discovery order may be r e v i e w e d by a p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus. Such c i r c u m s t a n c e s a r i s e (a) when a p r i v i l e g e i s d i s r e g a r d e d , s e e Ex p a r t e M i l t o p e C o r p . , 823 So. 2d 640, 644-45 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) ; (b) when a discovery order compels the production of p a t e n t l y irrelevant or d u p l i c a t i v e documents t h e p r o d u c t i o n o f which c l e a r l y c o n s t i t u t e s harassment or i m p o s e s a b u r d e n on t h e p r o d u c i n g p a r t y f a r o u t o f p r o p o r t i o n t o any b e n e f i t r e c e i v e d by t h e r e q u e s t i n g p a r t y , s e e , e.g., Ex 5 requesting party, p a r t e Compass Bank, 686 So. 2d 1135, 1138 (Ala. 1996); (c) when t h e t r i a l court either imposes sanctions effectively p r e c l u d i n g a d e c i s i o n on t h e m e r i t s o r denies discovery going t o a party's e n t i r e a c t i o n o r d e f e n s e so t h a t , i n e i t h e r event, t h e outcome o f t h e c a s e h a s b e e n a l l b u t d e t e r m i n e d a n d t h e p e t i t i o n e r w o u l d be merely going through the motions of a t r i a l t o o b t a i n an a p p e a l ; o r (d) when t h e t r i a l court impermissibly prevents the p e t i t i o n e r f r o m m a k i n g a r e c o r d on t h e d i s c o v e r y i s s u e so t h a t an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t c a n n o t r e v i e w the e f f e c t of the t r i a l c o u r t ' s a l l e g e d error. The b u r d e n r e s t s on t h e p e t i t i o n e r to demonstrate t h a t i t s p e t i t i o n p r e s e n t s s u c h an e x c e p t i o n a l c a s e -- t h a t i s , one i n w h i c h an a p p e a l i s n o t an a d e q u a t e remedy. See Ex p a r t e C o n s o l i d a t e d P u b l ' g Co., 601 So. 2d 423, 426 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) . ' "Ex p a r t e D i l l a r d Dep't S t o r e s , 1134, 1136-37 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) . " Ex p a r t e I n c . , 879 So. 2d Zoghby, 958 So. 2d 314, 319-20 6 ( A l a . 2006). 1120744 "Discovery discretion, matters and t h i s are w i t h i n Court w i l l the trial not reverse court's a trial 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 t r i a l c o u r t has exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n . " So. 2d 810, 813 sound court's clearly Ex p a r t e Ocwen F e d . Bank, FSB, 872 ( A l a . 2003). Discussion USA Water Ski contends that the trial court clearly exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n o r d e r i n g p r o d u c t i o n of Neuberger's post-incident report the because, i t work-product says, doctrine. the USA report is Water Ski privileged under maintains, and E w i n g does n o t deny, t h a t t h e e l e m e n t a t i s s u e i n t h i s c a s e i s w h e t h e r t h e p o s t - i n c i d e n t r e p o r t was " p r e p a r e d i n a n t i c i p a t i o n of litigation." "'"Under R u l e 2 6 ( b ) ( 3 ) , [ A l a . R. C i v . P.,] t h e p a r t y o b j e c t i n g to d i s c o v e r y bears the burden of establishing the elements of the work-product exception."' Ex p a r t e Cummings, 776 So. 2d 771, 774 (Ala. 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 . 1 9 9 4 ) ) . Those e l e m e n t s a r e ' t h a t (1) the m a t e r i a l s sought t o be protected are 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 ; and (3) they were p r e p a r e d by or for a party or a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h a t p a r t y . ' 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 ) ; see a l s o 8 C. W r i g h t , A. M i l l e r & R. M a r c u s , F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e and P r o c e d u r e § 2024, a t 336 ( 1 9 9 4 ) . 7 1120744 "Once ' " t h e 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 anticipation of l i t i g a t i o n , ' " ' the objecting party 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 ) ) "[When t h e d e t e r m i n a t i v e i s s u e i s w h e t h e r t h e discovery to be produced was prepared in 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 ] " 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 t h e [ o b j e c t i n g p a r t i e s ' ] b u r d e n o f proof.' 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. K a n . 2 0 0 0 ) . '"That b u r d e n c a n n o t be d i s c h a r g e d b y mere c o n c l u s o r y o r ipse 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. K a n . 2 0 0 0 ) ) . Where the record contains 'no affidavits, memorandums, o r r e p o r t s t o s u p p o r t t h e [ o b j e c t i n g parties' contentions],' the court can only ' s p e c u l a t e ' as t o w h e t h e r t h e m a t e r i a l s ' f a l l u n d e r the work-product e x c e p t i o n . ' Ex p a r t e F u l l e r , 600 So. 2d 214, 216 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) . See a l s o Nutmeg I n s . Co. v. A t w e l l , V o g e l & S t e r l i n g , a D i v . o f E q u i f a x S e r v s . , I n c . , 120 F.R.D. 504, 510 (W.D. L a . 1 9 8 8 ) ( ' A c l e a r 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 items o r c a t e g o r i e s o b j e c t e d t o and t h e r e a s o n f o r that objection A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e p r o p o n e n t 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 the c o u r t t o determine p r i v i l e g e , and t h e proponent must show b y 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 claim of p r i v i l e g e . ' ) . " Ex p a r t e (Ala. Meadowbrook I n s . Group, I n c . , 987 So. 2d 540, 548 2007). USA Water S k i contends t h a t establishing that Neuberger's 8 i tsatisfied post-incident i t s burden o f report was 1120744 p r i v i l e g e d under the work-product d o c t r i n e because, i t says, the evidence established anticipation of p r i v i l e g e , USA the the he driver the He that explained of In He routinely p r e p a r e d by the of the establishes Water that i t s claim of Wilson, that skier's he in family asked the the USA Water asked Wilson Neuberger, about the defense of r e p o r t was that affiliated file the r e p o r t i s not following Wilson's an affidavit prepared i n a n t i c i p a t i o n privilege. "'Under R u l e 2 6 ( b ) ( 3 ) , [ A l a . R. C i v . P.,] the p a r t y o b j e c t i n g to 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 w o r k - p r o d u c t i o n exception.' Ex p a r t e G a r r i c k , 642 So. 2d 951 ( A l a . 9 for potential l i t i g a t i o n and e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t t h e r e p o r t i s p r o t e c t e d by work-product a chief accident a and occurred would Ski personnel Ski maintains that Water S k i f u r t h e r e x p l a i n e d t h a t an a c c i d e n t USA in affidavit, accident f o r a USA the assisting lawsuit. accident. of prepared an a f f i d a v i t f r o m examiner, to prepare a r e p o r t purpose was f a m i l i a r w i t h the l e g a l system practicing believed lawsuit. support report. serious nature a s k i e r was report W a t e r S k i ' s D r i v e r s C o m m i t t e e , who to prepare i n l i g h t of the show, In Water S k i s u b m i t t e d s t a t e d t h a t b e c a u s e he was while the litigation. c h a i r m a n o f USA Neuberger that of the 1120744 1994). The mere fact that litigation does eventually ensue does not, by itself, cloak m a t e r i a l s w i t h the p r o t e c t i o n of the work-product privilege. Sims v. K n o l l w o o d P a r k Hosp., 511 So. 2d 154 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) . ' " [ 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 t h e n a t u r e o f t h e document and 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 obtained 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 . " ' S i m s , 511 So. 2d a t 157 ( q u o t i n g B i n k s Mfg. Co. v. N a t i o n a l P r e s t o I n d u s t r i e s , I n c . , 709 F.2d 1109, 1119 (7th Cir. 1983)). The w o r d (and c o n c e p t ) b e c a u s e i s critical." Ex 1002 parte State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 761 So. 2d 1000, (Ala. 2000). H e r e , USA Water S k i a d e q u a t e l y e x p l a i n e d t h a t Neuberger's post-incident litigation. report Wilson p r e p a r e the report, was prepared explained w h i c h was because that not he of Neuberger to o r d i n a r i l y prepared an asked prospective by USA W a t e r S k i p e r s o n n e l f o l l o w i n g an a c c i d e n t , i n a n t i c i p a t i o n of assisting in evidence before r e p o r t was and us defense of litigation. o r use lawsuit. Neuberger's reason other Therefore, r e l a t i o n s h i p between the the p r o d u c t i o n a indicates that p r e p a r e d f o r any for eventual a causal the of the 10 USA None of the post-incident than i n preparation Water S k i e s t a b l i s h e d a n t i c i p a t i o n of report. litigation 1120744 Ewing m a i n t a i n s not protected argues t h a t by t h a t Neuberger's p o s t - i n c i d e n t r e p o r t i s the work-product t h e e v i d e n c e does n o t e s t a b l i s h was p r e p a r e d i n a n t i c i p a t i o n affidavit does Water parte State requested file State Ski. had been prepared in privileged. "'was arguing anticipation the affidavit anticipated because Wilson's that the report t o be b r o u g h t case, the that of the l a w s u i t the f i l e and an a f f i d a v i t and t o o k litigation that Because S t a t e provided that would Farm d i d n o t p r e s e n t documents sought were 11 be State Farm prepared product therefore that [the regarding that generally that State brought evidence filed. Court h e l d and d i d n o t e s t a b l i s h litigation claims stating that i t the p o s i t i o n This Ex plaintiff was work litigation 761 So. 2d a t 1003. merely was against was h a d p l a n n e d t o be i n v o l v e d i n l i t i g a t i o n accident.'" anticipated that before S t a t e Farm s u b m i t t e d this report o f documents f r o m S t a t e Farm's under the i m p r e s s i o n plaintiff] the In prepared Farm o b j e c t e d , the she o f h e r argument, Ewing c i t e s supra. the production that of l i t i g a t i o n In support Farm, state First, that of l i t i g a t i o n not s p e c i f i c a l l y prepared i n a n t i c i p a t i o n USA privilege. Farm against i t . indicating that specifically in 1120744 a n t i c i p a t i o n of l i t i g a t i o n against that t h e documents were S t a t e Farm, t h e C o u r t h e l d not protected by t h e work-product privilege. Here, Wilson's affidavit adequately establishes that N e u b e r g e r ' s p o s t - i n c i d e n t r e p o r t was 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 a g a i n s t USA Water S k i . explained Wilson h i s r o l e a n d N e u b e r g e r ' s r o l e i n t h e USA W a t e r S k i organization, practice In h i s a f f i d a v i t , explained for a USA that Water the accident S k i show, occurred and during explained that, a l t h o u g h he " d i d n o t b e l i e v e USA W a t e r S k i , t h e N a t i o n a l Ski Association had done a n y t h i n g or Colonel Bigg's i m p r o p e r , " he b e l i e v e d l i t i g a t i o n was l i k e l y W i l s o n does n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y state Therefore, USA inference Water Neuberger's p o s t - i n c i d e n t of l i t i g a t i o n Next, from Ski Although i n his affidavit a n t i c i p a t e d l i t i g a t i o n t o be i n i t i a t e d i s a fair Show [ s i c ] Water S k i Show Team and t h a t t h e r e p o r t w o u l d be h e l p f u l t o t h e d e f e n s e . that a t h a t he a g a i n s t USA W a t e r S k i , a reading adequately of h i s affidavit. established r e p o r t was c r e a t e d that i n anticipation against i t . Ewing maintains that Neuberger's post-incident r e p o r t was 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 l i t i g a t i o n 12 because 1120744 the correspondence attorney direction Ewing members o f USA W a t e r o f an a t t o r n e y had r e t a i n e d before c o n s t i t u t i n g t h e r e p o r t was b e t w e e n n o n - or i n response an a t t o r n e y , a l a w s u i t was f i l e d . not p r e p a r e d a t t h e request in two that years o f an a t t o r n e y a n d t h a t t h e r e p o r t when d e t e r m i n i n g t o be r e s o l v e d t o any n o t i c e a n d was w r i t t e n a l a w s u i t was f i l e d a r e f a c t o r s w h e t h e r t h e r e p o r t was p r e p a r e d a n t i c i p a t i o n of l i t i g a t i o n . question at the The e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e r e p o r t was was p r e p a r e d two y e a r s b e f o r e to consider S k i , was n o t d r a f t e d However, i n this the case i s whether determinative Neuberger's p o s t - i n c i d e n t r e p o r t " 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 or o b t a i n e d because of t h e prospect of l i t i g a t i o n . " K n o l l w o o d P a r k Hosp., 511 So. 2d 154, 158 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) . Sims v. C f . Ex p a r t e Meadowbrook I n s . G r o u p , 987 So. 2d a t 549 ("Thus, ' t h e purpose f o r which fundamental whether] a requirement litigation party of created the Rule, i s reasonably e v e n underway , a c o u r t must s t i l l why a document was p r o d u c e d . ' 138 a document and i s the [regardless of a n t i c i p a t e d , c e r t a i n , or u n d e r t a k e an e x a m i n a t i o n o f H a r p e r v. A u t o - O w n e r s I n s . Co., F.R.D. 655, 661 (S.D. I n d . 1 9 9 1 ) ( s o m e e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . " ) . W i l s o n ' s a f f i d a v i t e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t , a t t h e t i m e he a s k e d f o r 13 1120744 the r e p o r t , he recognized t h a t the i n c i d e n t had the death of a s k i e r w h i l e the Water litigation Ski show and that establishes that this course of b u s i n e s s . support a of p r o t e c t e d by The that discovery matters, Fuller, 600 created i n the ordinary report and, was also of t h i s case prepared in consequently, is privilege. discretionary authority t h a t a u t h o r i t y i s not u n l i m i t e d . 2d 214, USA i t c o u r t , under the Alabama R u l e s of broad So. for a ensue; circumstances the N i s s e i Sangyo A m e r i c a , L t d . , 577 parte preparing would litigation the work-product has not f a c t s and eventual "While the t r i a l Procedure, r e p o r t was conclusion anticipation s k i e r was resulted in 216 So. 2d 912 Civil regarding Ex parte (Ala. 1991)." ( A l a . 1992) . USA Ex Water S k i has shown t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t c l e a r l y e x c e e d e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n o r d e r i n g the p r o d u c t i o n of Neuberger's p o s t - i n c i d e n t r e p o r t because doctrine. the report is p r i v i l e g e d under the work-product 2 "Even i f the work-product p r i v i l e g e applies, Rule 2 6 ( b ) ( 3 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., r e c o g n i z e s an e x c e p t i o n when t h e party requesting t h e m a t e r i a l can show s u b s t a n t i a l n e e d c o u p l e d w i t h undue h a r d s h i p . " Ex p a r t e N o r f o l k S o u t h e r n Ry., 897 So. 2d 290, 295 ( A l a . 2004) . E w i n g , h o w e v e r , does n o t argue t h a t t h i s e x c e p t i o n a p p l i e s here. 2 14 1120744 Conclusion B a s e d on t h e f o r e g o i n g , and issue vacate a writ i t s order we g r a n t USA Water S k i ' s p e t i t i o n o f mandamus d i r e c t i n g compelling Neuberger's p o s t - i n c i d e n t USA the t r i a l Water Ski to court t o produce report. PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED. Bolin, Parker, Murdock, Wise, and B r y a n , J J . , c o n c u r . Shaw, J . , c o n c u r s specially. Moore, C . J . , d i s s e n t s . 15 1120744 SHAW, J u s t i c e I I (concurring specially). concur i n g r a n t i n g the p e t i t i o n write specially to address an and i s s u i n g t h e argument made r e s p o n d e n t s , J o y K i n g E w i n g and R a c h e l K. B i e b e r r e f e r r e d t o c o l l e c t i v e l y as Ewing writ. by (hereinafter "Ewing"). contends t h a t the d e c i s i o n s i n Ex p a r t e Cummings, 776 So. 2d 771 ( A l a . 2000) , and Ex p a r t e C r y e r , 814 So. 2d (Ala. dictate 2001), report cannot be that the Mark considered a n t i c i p a t i o n of l i t i g a t i o n . " Neuberger's to have 239 post-incident been "prepared in Both of those d e c i s i o n s note the s e t t l e d r u l e p a r a p h r a s e d as f o l l o w s : I n d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r document i s p r i v i l e g e d work p r o d u c t , t h e t e s t i s w h e t h e r , l i g h t o f t h e n a t u r e o f t h e document and t h e f a c t u a l in the p a r t i c u l a r have been prepared litigation. The c a s e , t h e document can or o b t a i n e d because fact contingency of l i t i g a t i o n that a fairly of defendant be a in situation said to the p r o s p e c t of anticipates the r e s u l t i n g f r o m an a c c i d e n t o r e v e n t does n o t a u t o m a t i c a l l y q u a l i f y an " i n house" r e p o r t as work product. The document compensation case i n q u e s t i o n i n Cummings file. Although 16 a was worker's a worker's compensation 1120744 c l a i m might u l t i m a t e l y r e s u l t i n l i t i g a t i o n , the case f i l e i n Cummings was p r e p a r e d i n t h e o r d i n a r y c o u r s e o f b u s i n e s s a n d not 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 . 776 So. 2d a t 775. Cryer i n v o l v e d a document p r e p a r e d b y a d o c t o r r e l a t i n g t o a b i r t h where injury t o t h e baby o c c u r r e d . There was no evidence i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e p r e p a r e r o f t h e document knew o f i m p e n d i n g litigation, a n d , on t h e c o n t r a r y , t h e r e was some evidence i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e document was p r e p a r e d f o r a n o t h e r purpose. 814 So. 2d a t 247-48 The facts Neuberger's in and e v i d e n c e surrounding the p r e p a r a t i o n of r e p o r t here a r e c l e a r l y d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from those the cases cited by Ewing. I t was n o t an " i n house" document t h a t was r o u t i n e l y c r e a t e d i n t h e o r d i n a r y c o u r s e o f business; was a instead, unique f o r a l l that document created appears, Neuberger's f o r the sole p r e p a r i n g a defense i n a n t i c i p a t e d l i t i g a t i o n . different from a document produced merely purpose of I s e e t h i s as i n the ordinary course o f b u s i n e s s under the c l o u d of p o s s i b l e 17 report litigation.
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.
