If you have attended a deposition or read a deposition transcript, you have likely seen the deposing attorney ask the deponent the following question: “Did you review any documents in preparation for your deposition?” And, if the witness answers in the affirmative, “Please identify the documents you reviewed.” How should you handle this line of questioning when defending the deposition of a fact witness? Can you assert attorney work-product privilege? Or are the documents you used to prepare your witness discoverable?
Many courts addressing the discoverability of documents selected by counsel for deposition preparation note an apparent conflict between attorney work-product privilege (see, e.g., Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(3)) and rules of evidence permitting opposing counsel to discover documents used to refresh a witness’s recollection (see, e.g., Federal Rule of Evidence 612). Some courts hold that documents reviewed by a fact witness in preparation for deposition are not protected by attorney work-product doctrine solely because they were selected by an attorney. See, e.g., Nutramax Labs., Inc. v. Twin Labs., Inc. 183 F.R.D. 458, 467 (D. Md. 1998) (“If otherwise discoverable documents, which do not contain pure expressions of legal theories, mental impressions, conclusions or opinions of counsel, are assembled by counsel, and are put to a testimonial use in the litigation, then an implied waiver of the work product doctrine takes place, and the documents themselves, not their broad subject matter, are discoverable.”) Such courts are typically not persuaded by the argument that an attorney’s strategies and thought processes are revealed by the documents the attorney selects for a witness to review. See, e.g., N. Nat. Gas Co. v. Approximately 9117.53 Acres in Pratt, Kingman & Reno Counties, Kan., (183 F.R.D. 644, 648–50 D. Kan. 2013).
Other courts have reached the opposite conclusion. These courts hold that counsel’s selection of documents to prepare a witness for deposition is protected attorney work product because the selection of documents by an attorney reflects that attorney’s thought processes and legal theories. See, e.g., Sporck v. Peil 759 F2d 312, 316–18 (3d Cir. 1985);Shelton v. Am. Motors Corp. 805 F.2d 1323, 1329 (8th Cir. 1986). However, even where the documents an attorney selects to prepare a witness for deposition are found to be protected work product, a court may still permit the deposing attorney to discover specific documents the witness relied on to refresh his or her recollection as to the deposition testimony.