This is a US Case. But this case has strong parallelism with the old Filipino adage “Piniprito ka sa sarili mong mantika”
1943, J.M. Taylor… no that’s not a person that’s a tug. A tug means a tow boat. Like a tow truck? Only this one’s on water. It sank while engaged in towing a car float of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad across the Delaware River at Philadelphia. It was an accident where 5 of the 9 crew members drowned.
Well syempre if you think the liability rests on you the best thing to do is to have fortitude and face it, anticipate and prepare for the coming disaster. And so owners of J.M. Taylor defendants in this case employed the service of a law firm to defend them against potential suits by representatives of the deceased crew members and to sue the railroad for damages.
Mind you this is pre-trial huh?
Here’s what happened. Attorney for the defendants anticipating the litigation privately interviewed the four survivors taking statements from them.
Here comes the trial. One year later after the accident plaintiff Hickman, representative of 1 of the 5 victims brought suit in federal court. The issue here surfaced from 1 of the 39 interrogatories filed by Hickman and directed to the tug owners, requesting the tug owners to disclose in oral or in writing whether any statements of the 4 surviving crew members were taken following the accident.
This was admitted by the tug owners, but declined to summarize and provide contents basing their refusal on the ground that such requests called for “privileged matter obtained in preparation for litigation”.
The district court held that the requested matters were not privileged. And by refusal, the tug owners were held in contempt. (In favor of Hickman)
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the district court. (In favor of Taylor)
But the US Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Question. 1. Was Taylor’s counsel’s defense that matters obtained in preparation for litigation are among those cited by law as privileged tenable? 2. And was the act of the adverse counsel requesting the disclosure of what was obtained through interview of survivors by the opposing counsel prejudicial?
You know the US Supreme Court saw one thing in a form of a word that is magnified in this case on either both parties. The word “Discovery”. And we know very well how much Americans value this word. Information, data, facts is utmost to them. That’s why it affirmed the CCA judgment to overturn the order of discovery to favor whom it was doing its homework.
The US Supreme Court somehow favored Taylor in this matter. And the favor was ‘swift’ (hehe I know… Taylor Swift). Seriously..
The US Supreme Court said 1. “The protective cloak of the privilege information does not extend to information that an attorney secures from a witness while acting for his client in anticipation of litigation.”
There we go, the preceding paragraph has clearly established it. Which means what Taylor’s counsel did thus in fact doesn’t come under those matters that are privileged. I think were clear on that.
It’s like the court was saying “Attaboy!!.. just like what a typical American would do… discover.. but… hold your horses… it doesn’t easily work that way … but… overall?... you were amazing”
However..
Court also ruled that 2. “An attempt without necessity or justification to secure written statements, private memoranda and personal recollections prepared or formed by an adverse party’s counsel falls outside the arena of discovery.”
It’s like the Court is saying “hold it!.. hold it!.. woops! nope.. you can’t do that… yes I know, I can see that you are under the process of discovery and that is commendable but I am also under the impression that obviously you didn’t do your homework.. and I understand that but.. na ah… you can’t do shortcuts at the expense of another”
Eh onga naman. Hihingin mo lang yung defense mo sa defense ng iba. Eh ano nalang mafefeel ng kabilang party.. parang piniprito nga naman sya sa sarili nyang mantika. Kahit sabihin mong “Witness namin yan ah.. bat iniinterrogate mo? That’s extra-judicial. Do it in cross-examination or better yet file a motion in court to present him as hostile witness” But I think the action was filed one year later from the accident. Eh if I am the counsel for this case… eh there’s so much ample time before trial… I might as well prepare my self too.
Here’s what the US Supreme Court said:
“… there is the necessity for the lawyer to investigate all facets of the case and develop his theories without fear of having to disclose his strategies or information that is unfavorable to his client”
“There would be a demoralizing effect on law practice if lawyers were required to write out and deliver to their adversaries an account of what witnesses have told them.”
