The Freibott Law Firm was successful in its argument to the Superior Court of the State of Delaware that the Defendant’s oral statement and the Defendant’s written explanation of the facts concerning the accident provided to his insurance company should be produced to the Plaintiff. In the case of Desrivieres v. Mitchell, C.A. No. 11C-01-189 CLS, Judge Scott of the Superior Court compelled Amica Insurance Company to produce a signed Automobile Accident Report prepared by the Defendant and an audio recorded statement obtained by Amica of the Defendant concerning the facts of the collision. The Freibott Law Firm was successful in arguing that the statements did not fall within the purview of the work product doctrine, thus allowing the production of these very important statements. The Freibott Law Firm conducted a deposition of the Defendant on October 5, 2009 and discovered that the Defendant provided these statements to his insurance company. Neither the Plaintiff nor her attorney were ever notified that the Defendant wrote a statement or gave an oral statement to Amica. It was the decision of the Superior Court that both statements were to be provided to the Plaintiff as there was no indication that either statement was requested or prepared for, or by, any defense attorney, or reflected the employment of any defense attorney’s expertise. Therefore, the recorded statement and the written statement were not prepared in anticipation of litigation. (Desrivieres v. Mitchell, C.A. No.: 11C-01-189 CLS)
Related posts