- 9 -
product”. Id. at 315. In reaching its decision, the Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit concluded that “Because
identification of the documents as a group will reveal defense
counsel’s selection process, and thus his mental impressions,
* * * [we agree] that identification of the documents as a group
must be prevented to protect defense counsel’s work product.”
Id.
The Court in Sporck did not hold that any selection of
otherwise discoverable documents by an attorney would convert the
documents into work product. The protection of the work product
doctrine may be applied only to situations where the attorney’s
mental impressions would be disclosed by the discovery or handing
over of the selected materials. Cases decided since Sporck have
emphasized this distinction. Several courts have held that the
mere selection and/or organizing of otherwise discoverable
documents does not make them into work product. See, e.g.,
Audiotext Communications Network, Inc. v. U.S. Telecom, Inc., 164
F.R.D. 250, 252 (D. Kan. 1996); Wash. Bancorporation v. Said 145
F.R.D. 274, 277 (D.D.C. 1992). In that same vein and germane to
our facts, an attorney’s conversion of paper documents into
electronic media, by itself, does not make otherwise discoverable
documents into work product. See, e.g., Hines v. Windnall, 183
F.R.D. 596 (N.D. Fla. 1998); Fauteck v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 91
F.R.D. 393 (N.D. Ill. 1980).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011