Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 22 APRIL 2013

Can The Work Product Doctrine Protect Intangible Work Product?

The Fed. R. Civ. P 26(b)(3) refers to "documents and tangible things that are prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial", but most courts also protect intangible work product, either ignoring the rule's literal language or relying on a parallel federal common law work product doctrine.

United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

On its face, Fed. R. Civ. P 26(b)(3) refers to "documents and tangible things that are prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial." However, most courts also protect intangible work product (such as deposition testimony) – either ignoring the rule's literal language or relying on a parallel federal common law work product doctrine.

In Baird v. Dolgencorp, L.L.C., No. 4:11 CV 1589 DDN, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17269 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 5, 2013), the court dealt with an investigator's surveillance videotapes of a plaintiff. The court rejected defendants' motion to quash plaintiffs' subpoena to depose the investigator. The court noted that the subpoena sought "testimony rather than documents or tangible things" – and "[w]hat [the investigator] witnessed, that is relevant to the case, may be the subject of his deposition." Id. at *4.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from