1E9Ct5D

MISSISSIPPIStephen P. Huwe, Esq.DANIEL COKER HORTON & BELL4400 Old Canton Road, Suite 400Jackson MS 39211Phone (601)969-7607www.danielcoker.comshuwe@danielcoker.com1. Does your state recognize an exemption from discovery (or a privilege) forpre-suit investigation materials? Is there a key to preserving thisexemption/privilege (i.e. involvement of counsel)?Mississippi recognizes the work-product doctrine which protects documents andtangible things prepared in anticipation of litigation by a party or that party=srepresentative (attorney, consultant, surety, indemnitor, insurer, or agent) fromdiscovery. The filing of a suit or involvement of counsel is not necessarily the key fortriggering protection. Rather, the Mississippi Supreme Court has held that it is for thetrial court to determine when documents are prepared with Aan eye toward litigation andnot in the ordinary course of business.@ Powell v. McLain, 105 So. 3d 308, 313 (Miss.2012). In making this determination, the trial court considers the specific documentssought to be protected on a case-by-case basis, employing a detailed analysis andconsidering such factors as the relationship between the parties, the nature of thedocuments, etc.2. What is your state’s rule with regard to the discoverability of written orrecorded statements taken during investigation of an incident?Recorded statements receive some protection from discovery. In Powell v. McLain, 105So.3d 308, 313 (Miss. 2012), the Mississippi Supreme Court held that recordedstatements may be disclosed under certain circumstances; however, before the trialcourt mandates production, it must thoroughly analyze the statement under thework-product analysis. Thus, when a statement is taken with "an eye toward litigation,"the statement may still be disclosed if the requesting party demonstrates a substantialneed for the materials and demonstrates that substantially equivalent materials cannotbe obtained absent undue hardship.3. Does your state recognize a self-critical analysis privilege?No.