A federal judge recently agreed with Kahn Law Firm that where
the injured party seeks to depose the defendant’s auto
insurer to find out (1) whether defendant gave any statements to
the insurer and, if so, the substance of those statements; and
(2) whether the insurer communicated with defendant regarding
plaintiff’s injuries, health, medical bills, or condition,
plaintiff is not seeking documents or tangible things;
therefore, the work-product doctrine does not apply.
South Carolina Lawyers Weekly
recently published an article about Smyth v. Williamson (Lawyers
Weekly No. 002-106-14, 10 pp.) (David Norton, J.) 2:13-cv-02553;
D.S.C.
Holding: Where plaintiff seeks to depose the defendant’s auto insurer to find out (1) whether defendant gave any statements to the insurer and, if so, the substance of those statements; and (2) whether the insurer communicated with defendant regarding plaintiff’s injuries, health, medical bills, or condition, plaintiff is not seeking documents or tangible things; therefore, the work-product doctrine does not apply.
Holding: Where plaintiff seeks to depose the defendant’s auto insurer to find out (1) whether defendant gave any statements to the insurer and, if so, the substance of those statements; and (2) whether the insurer communicated with defendant regarding plaintiff’s injuries, health, medical bills, or condition, plaintiff is not seeking documents or tangible things; therefore, the work-product doctrine does not apply.
