DocketNumber: C.A. Nos. PC-03-0589, PC-05-4465
Judges: GIBNEY, J.
Filed Date: 9/11/2006
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/6/2016
In their request for production, the Plaintiffs sought a "[c]opy of any and all forms completed by any clinician or clinical services, and/or the attending obstetrician/pediatrician, when an autopsy has been requested. This document may be part of the hospital's `Autopsy File.'" In response to this request, the Hospital stated that
"[a]n Occurrence Screen was prepared in this case by Nurse B. Ottiano referring to an Occurrence Screen date of 8/29/02 and time of 0800-0905. It is hospital policy not to produce these inasmuch as they are made in anticipation of litigation. It is believed that suits are brought many times just when there is an unfortunate outcome without any malpractice."
The plaintiffs contend that this Occurrence Screen is not privileged because, they allege, such reports are prepared routinely and in the ordinary course of business.
The extent of discoverable information is set forth in Super. R. Civ. P. Rule 26(b)(1). It provides in relevant part:
"Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or to the claim or defense of any other party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter. It is not ground for objection that the information sought will be inadmissible at the trial if information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence."
"`Discovery' is one of the working tools of the legal profession. . . . It seems clear and long has been recognized that discovery should provide a party access to anything that is evidence in his case." Hickman v. Taylor,
A party resisting production bears the burden of establishing lack of relevancy or undue burden. See Oleson v. Kmart Corp.,
The issue before this Court is whether the Occurrence Screen that was prepared after Sonny T. Long's death is privileged and, as such, is not discoverable. This Court does not believe that to be the case.
"In order to assert an attorney-client privilege, three main elements must be present: (1) both parties must contemplate that the attorney-client relationship does or will exist; (2) the advice must be sought by the client from that attorney in his capacity as a legal advisor; (3) the communication between the attorney and client must be identified to be confidential."State ex rel. United Hosp. Ctr. v. Bedell,
This Court concludes that the Hospital did not carry its burden of establishing that the Occurrence Screen prepared in this case is protected by attorney-client privilege; consequently, it is subject to discovery.3
For the foregoing reasons, the Hospital is ordered to deliver the Occurrence Screen to Plaintiffs' attorney forthwith.
D'AMARIO v. State , 686 A.2d 82 ( 1996 )
Callahan v. Nystedt , 641 A.2d 58 ( 1994 )
State Ex Rel. United Hosp. v. Bedell , 199 W. Va. 316 ( 1997 )
Mortgage Guarantee & Title Co. v. Cunha , 745 A.2d 156 ( 2000 )
Hickman v. Taylor , 329 U.S. 495 ( 1947 )
United States v. Procter & Gamble Co. , 78 S. Ct. 983 ( 1958 )