Banks v. Lockheed-Georgia Co.

Banks v. Lockheed-Georgia Co.

Opinion

 [*284]  O'KELLEY, D. J. :

All other pending discovery motions having been resolved, the Court, on October 6, 1971, heard argument on the plaintiffs' fifth request for the production of documents pursuant to Rule 34 F.R.C.P. The hearing centered around request 1(e) which seeks production of the following:

"All analyses, reports, interim reports, and any other written material prepared by the company equal employment opportunity 'team' which was established following the 1970 Defense Supply Agency Compliance Review referred to in the deposition of C.A. Jenkins taken on September 13, 1971, as P 5, Jenkins and also referred to in the testimony of Hugh Gordon on deposition taken on September 14 and 15, 1971."

After indicating to the parties the Court's views on this matter, the Court directed the parties to begin compliance with the Court's stated opinion pending the signing of this written Order.

In 1970, defendant Lockheed appointed a "team" of employees to study the company's problems in the area of equal employment opportunities, and to determine the progress, if any, of the company's Affirmative Action Compliance Programs.  [**2]  From this "team's" findings, a formal report was executed pursuant to Executive Order 11246, Order No. 4 (as revised) and was presented to the Department of Defense Contracts Compliance Office. Defendant Lockheed has agreed to produce a copy of its 1970-71 and 1971-72 reports as submitted to the Department of Defense Contracts Compliance Office, i.e. the substantive results of the "team's" work, but objects to the production of the "team's" actual report which includes a candid self-analysis and evaluation of the Company's actions in the area of equal employment opportunities. It is this information that the plaintiffs seek.

Lockheed contends that the information sought by the plaintiffs is protected by Rule 26(b)(3) F.R.C.P. as they claim that it constitutes information collected in preparation for trial. The first of these three discrimination suits was filed against Lockheed in 1968, and there are five other such suits before the Court at this time. Keeping this fact in mind, the Court takes note of the fact that ] the "team" of investigators appointed by Lockheed to make the report in question included one of Lockheed's attorneys.  From these facts, the Court concludes that [**3]  this investigation reasonably could have been made in preparation for trial. Further, the report could be said to include the "mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal  [*285]  theories of an attorney or other representative of a party concerning the litigation" which would further protect it from discovery by the plaintiffs. Rule 26(b)(3) F.R.C.P. See Southern Railway Co. v. Lanham, 403 F.2d 119 (5th Cir. 1968).

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.