Hickman v. Taylor
Citation: 329 U.S. 495 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1947)
Facts
After a tugboat sank and several crew members died, the tugboat owners’ attorney interviewed survivors in anticipation of litigation. The opposing party later sought discovery of the attorney’s notes and memoranda from those interviews. The attorney refused to produce them, and the district court held him in contempt.
Issue
Whether an opposing party may obtain, through discovery, written statements, private memoranda, and personal recollections prepared by an attorney in anticipation of litigation.
Holding
The Supreme Court reversed, holding that materials prepared by an attorney in anticipation of litigation are protected from discovery absent a showing of substantial need and inability to obtain the equivalent without undue hardship.
Rule
The work product doctrine protects materials prepared by or for an attorney in anticipation of litigation. The protection is not absolute for ordinary work product but is nearly absolute for opinion work product reflecting the attorney’s mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, and legal theories.
Significance
Hickman is the foundational case for the work product doctrine, which is now codified in FRCP Rule 26(b)(3). It established the critical distinction between ordinary work product (qualified protection) and opinion work product (near-absolute protection), a distinction that remains central to discovery practice.