- 2 -
attorney’s selection of the particular documents
reflects his mental impressions and is therefore
protected work product. The documents sought are
otherwise discoverable.
Held: The mere selection of particular documents
by P’s defense attorney does not automatically
transmute the documents into work product. Held,
further, as P has failed to make the requisite showing
of how the disclosure of the documents selected would
reveal the defense attorney’s mental impressions of the
case, the requested documents and computerized
electronic media are not protected by the work product
doctrine.
Mark M. Hathaway and James D. McCarthy, Jr., for
petitioners.
Louis B. Jack and Nicholas J. Richards, for respondent.
OPINION
GERBER, Judge: Respondent moved to compel the discovery of
documents and computer searchable electronic media from
petitioners. The documents were obtained by Jeffrey Hambarian’s
(petitioner’s) defense attorneys in a criminal case. Petitioners
refused to turn over the documents, asserting the protection of
the work product doctrine. In particular, we consider whether
the selection of particular documents from a larger universe
causes otherwise discoverable documents to become protected work
product.
Background
These consolidated cases involve determinations that
petitioners’ income was understated and that the understatement
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011