June 27, 2011
On June 23, 2011, the Indiana Supreme Court issued a decision in a criminal case that could have a large effect on discovery practice in civil actions in
Crawford v. State of Indiana, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. 2011), Cause No. 49S05-1106-CR-370. At issue in this case is how particular does a request for production need to be in order to be enforceable?
less..
In this case, Crawford was convicted of murder by a jury. Prior to his trial, a television production company called Lucky Shift, Inc., filmed various aspects of Crawford's murder investigation and interviewed the people involved. This footage was combined into an episode of a nonfiction police show.
Crawford requested an order from the trial court directing Lucky Shift to produce certain
footage it had relating to his murder investigation. Lucky Shift objected. The trial court denied three of Crawford's requests because they were not particular enough. Crawford appealed that decision and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The case was then transferred to the Indiana Supreme Court to address the particularity of two of the requests. The two requests at issue provided as follows:
Request #18: Footage of any and all statements of officers, agents, or affiliates of [Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department ("IMPD")] or any reenactment thereof.
Request #19: Footage of anyone interviewed or questioned, or any reenactment thereof, in connection with the investigation of the death of Gernell Jackson.
The Court noted that Trial Rules
26 and
34 applied to Crawford's discovery requests to Lucky Strike and that Rule 34 requires that requests for production must be made "with reasonable particularity."
We require that an item be designated with reasonable particularity for several reasons. It enables the subpoenaed party to identify what is being sought and the trial court to determine whether there has been sufficient compliance with the request and it prohibits the requesting party from engaging in an impermissible "fishing expedition." "[W]hat constitutes reasonable particularity 'will depend on the facts of each individual case, the crime charged, the nature of the items sought to be discovered, the degree of discovery of other items of information, the nature of the defense, etc.'" In general, the particularity requirement demands something more precise than "'give me everything related to the case.'"
In this case, the Court said that Crawford's requests were "basically asking for anything anyone has ever said to Lucky Shift with regard to this case." Therefore, the trial court did not err in finding that they were not sufficiently particular.
The context of this case (a third-party request in a criminal case) may limit the decision's applicability to all requests for production. However, the Court's reliance on Rule 34's "reasonable particularity" requirement will give all civil litigants (both parties and third-parties to a lawsuit) additional leverage when opposing requests for production.
Lessons:
- The Indiana Supreme Court has given teeth to Trial Rule 34's requirement that requests for production be made with reasonable particularity.
Trackback Address :: http://www.indianalawupdate.com/trackback/235
