(protecting intangible work product, and including that defendant's interrogatory asking how plaintiffs planned to prove their case was improperly sought plaintiffs' opinion work product; "Interrogatory 12 states: 'Describe in detail how you will establish that a particular fee was split between Genuine Title, LLC, and a 'Referring Broker' or Emery for each putative class member, including how you will establish the total amount of the fee, the amount of the fee that was split, the date the split fee payment was made, to whom the split fee was paid, how the split fee was paid, and the process that you, your counsel, the Court, or a jury will use to ascertain the identity and amount of the fee you contend was split.'"; "Plaintiffs' objections to these interrogatories under the work-product doctrine are well-taken. An attorney's work product is reflected 'in interviews, statements, memoranda, correspondence, briefs, mental impressions, personal beliefs, and countless other tangible and intangible ways.'"; "Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3) provides work-product protection to documents and tangible things prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for an attorney. However, the contours of the work-product doctrine are broader than the protection provided by Rule 26(b)(3). As the Sixth Circuit has explained, the work-product doctrine is not limited only to documents and tangible things because 'disclosure of the opinions or mental processes of counsel may occur when nontangible work product is sought through depositions, interrogatories, and requests for admission.'"; "Here, Interrogatories 11, 12 and 13 do not seek the facts giving rise to plaintiffs' allegations of kickbacks and split fees, nor do they seek facts concerning the diligence of putative class members in pursuing their claims. Instead, Interrogatories 11 and 12 ask plaintiffs to describe how they plan to 'establish' that alleged referral payments and fee-splitting payments will be tied to each putative class member for purposes of the anticipated class certification motion."; "Further, these interrogatories are not contention interrogatories. Contention interrogatories 'are interrogatories that seek to clarify the basis for or scope of an adversary's legal claims.'. . . Such interrogatories 'ask a party to state the facts upon which it bases a claim or defense' or ask 'for an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact.'. . . As propounded, these interrogatories do not ask plaintiffs to 'state the facts upon which [they] base[]' their claims, nor do they seek 'an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact.' See id. Instead, these interrogatories seek information concerning the process by which plaintiffs 'will establish' their kickback and split fee allegations, the 'process' that their counsel 'will use to ascertain the identity and amount' of the alleged split fees, and the process counsel will use to 'ascertain' the diligence of putative class members. . . . Thus, such interrogatories do not seek the factual basis of plaintiffs' claims but information concerning counsel's legal strategy and mental impressions that is protected work product."; "Finally, defendant's contention that work-product protection is limited to documents and tangible things is not an accurate statement of the law. . . . Instead, an attorney's work product is reflected 'in interviews, statements, memoranda, correspondence, briefs, mental impressions, personal beliefs, and countless other tangible and intangible ways.' Hickman, 329 U.S. at 511 (emphasis added).")
| Case Date |
Jurisdiction |
State |
Cite Checked |
| 2017-01-17 |
Federal |
OH |
|