work product doctrine in Missouri

2025“The work product doctrine is ‘an intensely practical [doctrine], grounded in the realities of litigation in our adversary system.’” Hill v. Wallach, 661 S.W.3d 786 , 791 (Mo. 2023) (quoting U.S. v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 238 (1975)).

2023Therefore, the settlement documents are not protected by the work product doctrine, and there is no basis set forth in the writ petition for making the preliminary writ permanent. 11 Conclusion The work product doctrine is “an intensely practical [doctrine], grounded in the realities of litigation in our adversary system.” United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 238 (1975).

2024The work product privilege allows “a lawyer [to] work with a certain degree of privacy, free from unnecessary intrusion by opposing parties and their counsel.” Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 511 (1947).11 The privacy afforded to lawyers by the work product privilege applies equally to information beneficial, as well as detrimental, to the attorney’s client or position at trial. 11 In Hickman, the United States Supreme Court first recognized the work-product privilege, and Missouri has since codified the privilege in Rule 56.01 and the privilege “is now firmly established in the common law.”

2023Overview of the Work Product Doctrine The work product doctrine had its genesis in the oft-cited and much-celebrated case of Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947).

2025Rogers v. Cohen, 262 S.W.3d 648, 650 (Mo. banc 2008), quoting United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 238 (1975).

2024The premise of the doctrine comes from the need for counsel to “work with a certain degree of privacy, free from unnecessary intrusion by opposing parties and their counsel.” Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 510 (1947); Cohen, 262 S.W.3d at 650 ; see United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 238 (1975) (“interests of society and the accused in obtaining a fair 6 and accurate resolution of the question of guilt or innocence demand that adequate safeguards assure the thorough preparation and presentation of each side of the case”).

2024Edwards v. Mo. State Bd. of Chiropractic Examiners, 85 S.W.3d 10, 27 (Mo. App. W.D. 2002).

2022However, a disclosure made in trial preparation and that is “not inconsistent with maintaining secrecy against opponents[] should be allowed without waiver of the [work product immunity].” See Mitchell Humphrey & Co., 854 S.W.2d at 813 ; see also Edwards v. Missouri State Bd. of Chiropractic Examiners, 85 S.W.3d 10, 27 (Mo. App. W.D. 2002) (attorney’s communication with a fact witness and her attorney regarding instant litigation did not constitute a waiver). 12 However, Mercy attempts to rely on Westbrooke to claim the work product privilege was lost because of the communications and correspo

2024“The work product doctrine precludes discovery of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories, both tangible and intangible, created or commissioned by counsel in preparation for possible litigation.” Jamison, 502 S.W.3d at 620 .

2024“The work product doctrine precludes discovery of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories, both tangible and intangible, created or commissioned by counsel in preparation for possible litigation.” Id. at 620 (citing State ex rel.

2021The work product doctrine applies to protect the requested information. 898 S.W.2d at 553 ; see also id. at 554 (holding that interrogatory asking defendant to identify “who, among the co-workers, [the defendant] has interviewed” sought information which was “clearly protected as intangible work product”); State ex rel.

2021The work product doctrine applies to protect the requested information. 898 S.W.2d at 553 ; see also id. at 554 (holding that interrogatory asking defendant to identify “who, among the co-workers, [the defendant] has interviewed” sought information which was “clearly protected as intangible work product”); State ex rel.

2024Ford Motor Co. v. Westbrooke, 151 S.W.3d 364, 367 (Mo. banc 2004)).

2022The settlement documents claimed in Relators’ privilege log were subject to the work product privilege because the settlement negotiations and release were “prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial.” Westbrooke, 151 S.W.3d at 367 .

1987The work product doctrine does not limit the power of the trial court to order production of statements of witnesses who “have testified at trial.” Similarly, Halford v. Yandell, 558 S.W.2d 400, 401 (Mo.App.1977), upon which appellant relies, makes the same conclusions.

1987The court recognized a distinction between “privilege” and “work product.” The Southern District differentiated between pretrial discovery and the use, at the time of trial, of a document produced during the trial, 558 S.W.2d at 405 , and held that the manner in which the statement was used by defense counsel to impeach Laferny, the witness, was not “vulnerable to the objection leveled against it, that objection being founded on the work product doctrine.” 558 S.W.2d at 406 .” The court recognized the important distinction between calling for a statement at a deposition and calling for a state

2002Id.

1993In Board of Registration for the Healing Arts v. Spinden, 798 S.W.2d 472, 476 [7, 8] (Mo.App.1990), this court noted that the work product doctrine applies to trial preparation materials and opinion work product.

1997"Work product consists of `opinions, theories or conclusions of defendant's attorney ... [and] communications between defendant and his attorney.'" Carter, 641 S.W.2d at 59 (citations omitted).

1983The state on behalf of the respondent trial judge, asserts State v. Carter, 641 S.W.2d 54 (Mo. banc 1982), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 2096 , 77 L.Ed.2d 305 (1983), for the proposition that whoever pleads insanity waives all privileges, including the work-product doctrine and attorney-client privilege.

1993Friedman v. Provaznik, 668 S.W.2d 76, 79-80 (Mo. banc 1984) (an in camera examination provides the opportunity to determine what may be protected by the work product immunity).

1989Friedman v. Provaznik, supra, to hold an in camera examination and cull out those documents which are privileged.

2023This type of disclosure “waives the work product protection as to items actually disclosed, even where disclosure occurs in settlement.” In re Chrysler Motors Corp. Overnight Evaluation Program Litigation, 860 F.2d 844, 846 (8th Cir. 1988) (emphasis added) (internal quotations omitted).

2021Hackler v. Dierker, 987 S.W.2d 337, 338 (Mo. App. E.D. 1998) (“interrogatories requesting the names of witnesses from whom statements have been obtained” improperly sought discovery of intangible attorney work product); Otto, 866 S.W.2d at 483-84 (litigant cannot by interrogatory request a “detailed description of the [opposing party’s] investigation,” the identity of each person the opponent contacted and what the witnesses said, or a description of the documents prepared during the investigation).

2021Hackler v. Dierker, 987 S.W.2d 337, 338 (Mo. App. E.D. 1998) (“interrogatories requesting the names of witnesses from whom statements have been obtained” improperly sought discovery of intangible attorney work product); Otto, 866 S.W.2d at 483-84 (litigant cannot by interrogatory request a “detailed description of the [opposing party’s] investigation,” the identity of each person the opponent contacted and what the witnesses said, or a description of the documents prepared during the investigation).

2021Ga. 2002) (“Numerous courts since Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 511 (1947), have recognized that names and addresses of witnesses interviewed by counsel who have knowledge of the facts alleged in the complaint are not protected from disclosure by the work product doctrine.”); Commonwealth of Mass. v. First Nat’l Supermarkets, Inc., 112 F.R.D. 149, 152 (D.

2020State v. Freeman, 269 S.W.3d 422, 426 (Mo.banc 2008).

2017The party opposing discovery must establish such protection “through competent evidence^]” Diehl v. Fred Weber, Inc., 309 S.W.3d 309, 323 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010). “ ‘Competent evidence’ may include a privilege log and affidavits from counsel.” State ex rel.

2008“A trial court has *719 broad discretion to admit or exclude evidence at trial.” State v. Madorie, 156 S.W.3d 351, 355 (Mo. banc 2005).

2008Ratcliff v. Sprint Mo., Inc., 261 S.W.3d 534, 547 (Mo.App.