(dissenting).
Although the result reached by the majority may well be a desirable one, I cannot concur in it since, in my view, it is contrary to the express terms of Alaska Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(3). That rule requires a party seeking discovery of materials prepared “in anticipation of litigation or for trial” including statements made by witnesses1 to make a showing that he has “substantial need of the materials in the preparation of his case and that he is unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means”.
Any contention that statements of witnesses do not come within this requirement is refuted by the fact that the very same subsection creates an exception to the required showing when a party seeks to discover his own previous statements made concerning the action. Likewise, a person not a party to the suit may obtain statements concerning the action previously made by that person.2 There would seemingly be no need for such exceptions if it were not necessary to make the required showing with reference to the securing of statements made by other witnesses.
I agree with the majority that Alaska’s discovery rules should be given a liberal interpretation in order to effectuate their underlying purpose, and I would also be in favor of considering possible changes in the rule to exempt eyewitness’ statements from the operation of the rule.3 However, given Civil Rule 26(b)(3) as it is presently written, I do not see how we can fairly construe the rule as not requiring the specified showing.
. For federal decisions so interpreting their analogous F.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(3), see, e. g., Brockway v. Department of the Air Force, 370 F.Supp. 738 (D.Iowa 1974) ; United States v. Real Estate Board, 59 F.R.D. 637 (D.Mo.1973).
. Alaska R.Civ.P. 26(b) (3) provides in pertinent part:
A party may obtain without the required showing a statement concerning the action or its subject matter previously made by that party. Upon request, a person not a party may obtain without the required showing a statement concerning the action or its subject matter previously made by that person.
. This would be more in line with our prior practice. See Alaska Public Utilities Commission v. Greater Anchorage Area Borough, 534 P.2d 549 n. 7 (1975).