General Motors Corp. v. Chauvin1/20/2005
THIS OPINION IS DESIGNATED "NOT TO BE PUBLISHED. " PURSUANT TO THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PROMULGATED BY THE SUPREME COURT, CR 76.28 (4) (c), THIS OPINION IS NOT TO BE PUBLISHED AND SHALL NOT BE CITED OR USED AS AUTHORITY IN ANY OTHER CASE IN ANY COURT OF THIS STATE.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT
AFFIRMING
I. INTRODUCTION
In an original action before the Court of Appeals, Appellant, General Motors Corporation ("GM"), petitioned for a writ prohibiting the circuit court from ordering the production of documents that GM claims are protected by the attorney-client privilege, but which the circuit court had ruled were produced in the ordinary course of business. The Court of Appeals denied the petition, finding, in effect, that Appellant failed to show that the circuit court had acted improperly or abused its discretion. Appellant now appeals, claiming that the Court of Appeals abused its discretion in that it failed to review separately each document for which GM claims a privilege. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
II. BACKGROUND
This case stems from a product liability lawsuit filed by Appellee and Real Party in Interest, Jason Wuetcher ("Wuetcher"), against GM, the Appellant, and Isuzu Motors, Ltd. ("Isuzu"), in the Jefferson Circuit Court. Wuetcher was injured in a car accident that occurred while he was driving his 1991 Geo Storm. In the lawsuit, Wuetcher claims that his car, which was designed and manufactured by GM and Isuzu, was in a defective condition, was unreasonably dangerous, and was negligently designed, marketed, manufactured, and distributed by GM and Isuzu.
In 2002, Wuetcher served GM with a set of interrogatories and requests for production of documents, which included the following: "Produce copies of all GM, Geo or Isuzu studies, memoranda or other documents pertaining to the dangers to occupants in rear collisions." As part of its answer, GM identified the so-called "Litigation Study," a large collection of documents related to GM's analysis of fifty lawsuits, spanning 1990-1992 and involving rear-end collisions. GM produced a large number of documents but claimed that many others were protected by various privileges. In support of its privilege claim, GM submitted a privilege log, titled "Litigation Study Privilege Log," which lists 231 documents totaling approximately 3,400 pages and which provides a variety of details as to each document, including the type of document (e.g., memo, handwritten notes, draft presentation, etc.), the Bates stamp number of the document, the date the document was prepared, who prepared the document, who received the document (in original or copy form), a very brief description of the document, and the type of privilege that GM claims for the document (i.e., attorney-client, work product, or both).
The privilege log also includes a numerical notation for each document. The notations appear to correspond to a legend at the bottom of each page of the privilege log ; the legend, in turn, appears to describe eighteen different categories that GM applied to the documents, including "2 Legal Staff Memos," "3 Legal Staff Memos to Engineers," "4 Non-Case Specific Handwritten Notes," and "18 Non-Litigation Study Documents." Many of these categories appear to overlap with the type of document designation, but both pieces of information are provided for each document and the "category" classifications are more specific than the "type of document" classifications.
On November 21, 2002, GM filed a motion for a protective order regarding the Litigation Study on the grounds that the docum
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Kentucky Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|