Williams v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co., Case No. 03-2200 (D.Kan. Feb. 27, 2007)
In this continuing wrongful termination saga, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel Defendant to produce certain documents with their original bates numbers. Defendant refused, citing the work product doctrine. Defendant argued that production of these documents with their original bates numbers will reveal the mental impressions of its counsel.
[P]roduction with different bates numbers is necessary to protect the identities, and thus the mental impressions, of the in-house attorneys who selected the documents for inclusion in their work files. These documents were identified, selected, and compiled by Defendant’s in-house attorneys in anticipation of litigation both during the reductions in force and during the course of this litigation. . . . [T]he documents reveal who these attorneys have gone to for information, and what issues they believe are important in this litigation. Permitting Plaintiffs' counsel to make the link between the legal file documents listed on the privilege log and the particular in-house attorneys who identified, selected, and compiled those documents will necessarily reveal the mental impressions of these attorneys.
The court rejected Defendant's contentions, reiterating the general rule in the district of Kansas that "the mere selecting and grouping of information does not transform discoverable documents into work product."
The court ordered Defendant to produce to Plaintiffs the documents in question with their original bates numbers, based on these findings and conclusions:
Defendant has not established that the mental impressions of its in-house counsel will be revealed if it is required to produce non-privileged documents with their original bates numbers. The parties agree that the documents previously listed on Defendant’s privilege log are not privileged or protected from disclosure as work product. Even assuming that Plaintiffs may be able to extrapolate backwards from the original bates numbers to Defendant’s privilege log and ascertain which particular attorney file contained the document, this does not create work product protection to preclude the production of the non-privileged documents with their original bates numbers.
