Stalnaker v. Kmart Corp case brief, Schlagenhauf v. Holder case brief, Hickman v. Taylor case brief, Thompson v. The Haskell Co. case brief

Civil Procedure Cases

Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000167 EndHTML:0000003151 StartFragment:0000000457 EndFragment:0000003135

Stalnaker v. Kmart Corp., p427

• Rule: The party requesting a discovery order has the burden of showing good cause for it by submitting a particular and specific demonstration of fact as distinguished from stereotyped and conclusory statements.

Schlagenhauf v. Holder, p433

• Rule: Rule 35's "in controversy" and "good cause" requirement mandates that the party requesting a physical or mental health examination of another party must show, either through pleadings or affidavit, some sort of deficiency regarding the mental or physical healthy of the opposing party.

Hickman v. Taylor, p438

• Rule: While the protective cloak of attorney-client privilege does not extend to information that an attorney secures from a witness while acting for his client in anticipation of litigation, an attempt, without necessity or justification, to secure written statements, private memoranda and personal recollections prepared or formed by an adverse party's counsel, falls outside the arena of discovery.

Thompson v. The Haskell Co., p447

• Rule: The results of physical or mental examinations of a party, prepared prior to litigation are discoverable if there are exceptional circumstances favoring disclosure and comparable information cannot be obtained by other means.

Chiquita International Ltd v. M/V Bolero Reefer, p448

• Rule: In determining whether a person is a non-testifying expert witness, for the purpose of precluding discovery related to facts known or opinions held by him, the relevant distinction is not between fact and opinion testimony, but between those witnesses whose information was obtained in the normal course of business and those who were hired to make an evaluation in connection with the expected litigation.