1E9Ct5D

WISCONSINJohn J. LaffeyWilliam E. HughesAnthony J. AnzelmoWHYTE HIRSCHBOECK DUDEK S.C555 East Wells Street, Suite 1900Milwaukee, WI 53202-3819Phone (414) 978-5301www.whdlaw.comjlaffey@whdlaw.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)?Yes. The seminal case is State ex rel. Dudek v. Circuit Court for Milwaukee County, 34Wis.2d 559, 150 N.W.2d 387 (1967). The key is involving counsel, and having theinvestigation proceed at his or her direction “in anticipation of litigation” in order toinvoke the benefit of the privilege(s). See Id., 150 N.W.2d at 404-407; Wis. Stat.804.01(c).2. What is your state’s rule with regard to the discoverability of written orrecorded statements taken during investigation of an incident?For parties, there are two general rules compelling production. The first is set forth inWis. Stat. Wis. Stat. §804.01(2)(c)(2):a party may obtain without the required showing [(i.e., substantial need/unduehardship to obtain otherwise)] a statement concerning the action or its subjectmatter previously made by that party. Upon request, a person not a party mayobtain without the required showing a statement concerning the action or itssubject matter previously made by that person.Wisconsin also has a rule of evidence, Wis. Stat. § 904.12(2), which provides in relevantpart:Every person who takes a written statement from any injured person or personsustaining damage with respect to any accident or with respect to any injury toperson or property, shall, at the time of taking such statement, furnish to theperson making such statement, a true, correct and complete copy thereof. . .Recorded statements of non-party witnesses taken at the direction of attorneys aresubject to the Dudek analysis and work-product protections discussed above.3. Does Wisconsin recognize a "self critical analysis" ?