DISCOVERY -- SCOPE OF EXAMINATION --ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE UNDER OHIO AND FEDERAL PROCEDURES

Authors

Carson C. Grunewald S.Ed., University of Michigan Law SchoolFollow

Abstract

During a deposition arising out of a suit against the Cleveland Transit System for its alleged negligent operation, Hyde, defendant's general manager, was ordered under subpoena duces tecum to produce reports of the defendant company and answer questions disclosing "all the busses ( the numbers, and names and addresses of the drivers) from 11:30 P.M. September 25, 1944, to 12:15 A.M., going south on East 152 Street." Hyde and the company attorney who possessed the accident reports refused to produce them or answer questions concerning them, claiming that the reports were within the attorney-client privilege. The deponents were taken into technical custody, and they petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus in the court of appeals for Cuyahoga County. Judgment was for defendant, the court holding the reports privileged and allowing the writ to issue. On appeal, held, affirmed. Reports of an accident, including the names and statements of the witnesses, are privileged when turned over to the company's legal department. In re Hyde, (Ohio 1948) 79 N.E. (2d) 224.

Recommended Citation

Carson C. Grunewald S.Ed., DISCOVERY -- SCOPE OF EXAMINATION --ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE UNDER OHIO AND FEDERAL PROCEDURES, 47 Mich. L. Rev. 416 (1949).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol47/iss3/16