United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 99-2885
___________
In re: Case Corporation, * Appeal from the United States
* District Court for the Eastern
Petitioner. * District of Arkansas.
*
* [UNPUBLISHED]
___________
Submitted: November 18, 1999
Filed: December 7, 1999
___________
Before McMILLIAN, FAGG, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Case Corporation, a cotton picker manufacturer, was sued by farmers whose
Case pickers were damaged by fire. Between May 1995 and March 1996, certain Case
employees designated as the "Cotton Picker Improvement Team" (CPIT) met to
conduct "an impartial review of cotton picker losses, including fires, to determine and
implement appropriate corrective and preventative measures." The CPIT meetings
were also attended by Case's outside counsel, who wrote a series of letters to Case's
corporate counsel detailing the information discussed at the meetings. When opposing
counsel requested that Case produce these letters, Case objected, claiming the letters
were protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege and the work product
doctrine. After examining the letters in camera, the district court concluded the letters
were discoverable because the meetings were not held in anticipation of or in
preparation for litigation, the purpose of the meetings was not to obtain legal advice
from Case's outside counsel, and the letters reported unprivileged "factual matters and
observations and opinions of [Case's] employees." In ordering production of the letters,
the district court found "most telling" a passage in one of the letters in which Case's
outside counsel stated:
During the course of this meeting, as has occurred in the past, the
participants in this committee started to discuss how to defend lawsuits,
and must be re-directed back to the primary purpose of the committee.
This committee was formed to determine whether there is any consistency
to cotton picker fires such that there can be any changes to the cotton
picker either by way of engineering or warnings to reduce frequency of
cotton picker fires. Since most of the participants in these meetings
believe that the primary cause of cotton picker fires is inadequate
maintenance and inadequate training of operators, they start with the idea
of trying to prove that it is not a design or a warning problem. [One of
Case's corporate attorneys] and I have previously discussed the approach
and agreed that this group is to be involved in engineering questions
rather than legal questions.
Case now petitions this court for a writ of mandamus, seeking to prevent
production of the letters. Having carefully reviewed the documents in question, the
parties' arguments, and the district court's thorough order, we conclude the district court
did not abuse its discretion in ordering production of the letters, see In re Bieter Co.,
16 F.3d 929, 932-33 (8th Cir. 1994), and deny Case's petition for writ of mandamus,
see 8th Cir. R. 47B.
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
-2-