United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division
MARANDA LYNN ODONNELL, et al., On behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS, et al., Defendants.
Rosenthal Chief United States District Judge.
court has reviewed in camera the plaintiffs'
unredacted copy of their investigator's report. The
parties do not dispute that the investigator was guided by
the plaintiffs' counsel in his investigation or that his
report was prepared in anticipation of litigation. The court
finds that the report is privileged attorney work product. To
the extent the plaintiffs rely on the report to support their
factual allegations, the relevant facts and nature of the
investigation in the report must be disclosed, either by
producing the report itself or by responding to
interrogatories and depositions. See Stern v.
O'Quinn, 253 F.R.D. 663, 676-80, 687 (S.D. Fla.
2008). But a partial waiver of the work-product privilege
does not entitle the defendants to the entire unredacted
investigator's record. See id. at 677 (ordering
production of investigative materials created before a
certain date but not after); United States v.
Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 239-40 (1975) (affirming only
partial disclosure of investigator's work). The court
finds that the plaintiffs have appropriately produced the
relevant factual material in their report. Their redaction of
irrelevant or strategic information was also appropriate.
defendants also seek production of a list of Harris County
employees who provided information to the plaintiffs, and the
Harris County documents that have been provided.
“Although the identity and location of witnesses that
may have knowledge of any discoverable matter is not
protected, the identity of witnesses interviewed by opposing
counsel is protected.” Ferruza v. MTI Tech.,
Civil No. 00-745, 2002 WL 32344347, at *3 (CD. Cal. June 13,
2002) (internal footnote omitted) (citing Mass. v. First
Nat'l Supermarkets, Inc.,112 F.R.D. 149, 154 (D.
Mass. 1986); Laxalt v. McClatchy,116 F.R.D. 438,
443 (D. Nev. 1987); McIntyre v. Main St. & Main
Inc., 2000 WL 33117274, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 29, 2000);
see also Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 572 Pension
Fund v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 2005 WL 14595555 (N.D. Cal.
June 21, 2005). The parties must generally disclose the
employees and ...