Let The Other Guy Do The Work:
What Parts of Litigation-Related Investigation Are Not Protected From Disclosure?
By Katherine Gallo and Christopher Cobey
The Docket – San Mateo County Bar Association, November/December 1998

"Request for Inspection No. 47: All documents, reports, letters, correspondence, notes, computer files on any investigations into the incident which is the subject of this litigation."

How many of us have received this document request? In fact you probably have a macro on your computer which spits out the following response:

"Objection: vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, invasive of the attorney client privilege, protected by work product doctrine and not likely to lead to admissible evidence. No documents will be produced."

Don't think the fight is over once you give this response, because it isn't that simple. California case law has carved out exceptions to the general rule which protects from disclosure a party's documents regarding investigations the party has undertaken.

• Read full article (pdf)

• "The 1986 Discovery Act—Is it Working?"
  
• "There's This Case That Says . . . Depositions"
  
• "The Codes—They are a Changin' "
  
• "Oops!!! Now what do I do?"
  
• "I Have This Great Doctor You Gotta See"
  
• "Do You Have All Your Ducks (Experts) in a Row?"
  
• "Why Aren't You Using Requests for Admissions?"
  
• "Let the Other Guy Do the Work… Which Parts of Litigation-Related Investigation Are Not Protected from Disclosure?"
  
• "Five of the Most Annoying Discovery Objections by Opposing Counsel and the Rulings That Are Sure to Follow"