The Assiduous Attorney

A bus owned and operated by the D Bus Company hits and injures pedestrian P. Fearing a lawsuit, D's in-house counsel, Fleegal, interviews the driver of the bus, C, and the only eyewitness to the accident, W. C describes the relevant events to Fleegal, who takes notes, goes back to his office, and files them. W describes the relevant events to Fleegal, who has his secretary take down W's comments verbatim and transcribe them in typewritten form. W signs the transcript, and Fleegal files it.

Fleegal also has his associate, Cratchet, gather up all the maintenance and driver records and other pertinent D Company documents. Fleegal has Cratchet prepare a memorandum analyzing these records and an index to them, all of which he files. Fleegal also reviews a memorandum he had Cratchet prepare some time ago on D's maintenance and driver-training programs and has that filed with the other material.

P sues the D Bus Company. During discovery, P's attorney files an FRCP 34 Request for Production of Documents asking for production of "all books, documents, papers, records, reports and things pertinent to, relating to or mentioning the subject accident, the maintenance of Company buses or its training of operating personnel."

What response should Fleegal make to this request? If P sends interrogatories to D pursuant to FRCP 33 seeking to elicit facts about the accident that Fleegal learned only from C, W, and Cratchet, what response should Fleegal make?

See the Hickman case, FRCP 26, and the Radiant Burners and Upjohn cases, which follow.