Mayfield v. District of Columbia

Alexandria County Circuit Court

Mayfield v. District of Columbia

8 Va. Cir. 157, 1986 Va. Cir. LEXIS 66

CourtAlexandria County Circuit Court

DecidedMarch 4, 1986

DocketCase Nos. (Law) 8514 and 8515

StatusPublished

This text of 8 Va. Cir. 157 (Mayfield v. District of Columbia) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alexandria County Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mayfield v. District of Columbia, 8 Va. Cir. 157, 1986 Va. Cir. LEXIS 66 (Va. Super. Ct. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

By JUDGE ALFRED D. SWERSKY

These matters, are. before the Court on plaintiffs* motion to compel; disclosure of a statement made, in a document by an employee of the defendant. Defendant claims that the statement is protected by the attorney work product deliberative, process exemption.

There is nothing in the document itself nor is there; any evidence before the Court that this document falls within the attorney-work product exception to discovery. The document appears to have been prepared for submission by . an employee at. Lorton to. a superior, also aa employee of defendant. Under these circumstances the rule, as set forth in Robertson v. Commonwealth, 181 Va. 520, 25 S.E.2d 352 (1943), and Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v. Knight, 106 Va. 674, 56 S.E. 725 (1907), would apply. Tfhe , holding of these cases, is that a statement made by an employee to his employer in. the course of his ordinary duty is not privileged unless for the bona fide purpose of being [158]*158transmitted to employer's attorney for advice or use in connection with threatened or pending litigation.

Absent any evidence of such a bona fide purpose the document in its entirety must be disclosed to plaintiffs or their counsel.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

By JUDGE ALFRED D. SWERSKY

These matters, are. before the Court on plaintiffs* motion to compel; disclosure of a statement made, in a document by an employee of the defendant. Defendant claims that the statement is protected by the attorney work product deliberative, process exemption.

There is nothing in the document itself nor is there; any evidence before the Court that this document falls within the attorney-work product exception to discovery. The document appears to have been prepared for submission by . an employee at. Lorton to. a superior, also aa employee of defendant. Under these circumstances the rule, as set forth in Robertson v. Commonwealth, 181 Va. 520, 25 S.E.2d 352 (1943), and Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v. Knight, 106 Va. 674, 56 S.E. 725 (1907), would apply. Tfhe , holding of these cases, is that a statement made by an employee to his employer in. the course of his ordinary duty is not privileged unless for the bona fide purpose of being [158]*158transmitted to employer's attorney for advice or use in connection with threatened or pending litigation.

Absent any evidence of such a bona fide purpose the document in its entirety must be disclosed to plaintiffs or their counsel.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 Va. Cir. 157, 1986 Va. Cir. LEXIS 66, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mayfield-v-district-of-columbia-vaccalexandria-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack