WPC  :# <UNG % 04 0w@4jT 0Dc mb B 0J 0T? 0^ N 0h 0r[ 0| 0I AQ  0D 0@* 0Dj 0 D/> 1um B D3 0d2U >B)DC AM@U*Jv~v6HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLl'"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular( U$  (o(2$ U!   XXX   `   0   DDDeӀ_#LNHAMMOCK V. SUMNER COUNTY - OPILNION   '  0 .   3|x(#$  0  U- -P Pd2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  !"#$&C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  ("$    ($$   1  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23  ' dxd% ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a) d(((('dxdP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d22227Border 1dd!#3C << G<  9p`(Arial @ !  #d#11   ""  55   YYY FILED5XDecember5,1997CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk    !#d#11   $   X 1X         _PursuanttoTenn.R.App.P.2,wesuspendtheapplicationofTenn.R.App.P.9(c),2426,&29.WealsofindoralargumenttobeunnecessarypursuanttoTenn.R.App.P.35(c).PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   ion-F Geneva  ion-F Geneva ! . 11     X  \RA'\ћ_7dXXd71    ќ @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE!ٜR463A1-j| `  `@Rߛ@ MIDDLESECTIONATNASHVILLE 1JERRYHAMMOCKandwife  )RUBYHAMMOCK,etal.,  )      ) Plaintiffs/Appellants,  )      ) SumnerCircuit      ) No.15861CVS.      )      ) AppealNo.      ) 01A019710CV00600SUMNERCOUNTY,TENNESSEE, )      ) Defendant/Appellee.  )@ APPEALFROMTHESUMNERCOUNTYCIRCUITCOURT@ ATLEBANON,TENNESSEE@ THEHONORABLETHOMAS_GOODALL_,JR.,JUDGEForthePlaintiffs/Appellants:    FortheDefendant/Appellee:B.KeithWilliams      JohnKnox_Walkup_Taylor,Taylor,_Lannom_Ԁ&Williams   AttorneyGeneralandReporterLebanon,Tennessee        WendellC.Dawson        AssistantAttorneyGeneral1 @ VACATEDANDREMANDED 1        WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE1@ OPINION 1 Thisinterlocutoryappealinvolvestherightofapartytodiscovertheappraisalreportofatestifyingexpertinacondemnationcase.TheCircuitCourtforSumnerCountydeniedthepropertyownersrequestfortheappraisalreportinordertopreparetodeposetheappraiseronthegroundsthatthereportis privileged,aswork_porduct_Ԁ[sic]butgrantedthepropertyownerspermissiontoapplyforaninterlocutoryappealpursuanttoTenn.R.App.P.9.Weconcurthataninterlocutoryappealwillpreventneedless,expensive,andprotractedlitigationinthiscase.Becausetheapplicationandtheresponsetheretofullysetforththepartiespositionsandthematerialfacts,wedispensewithfurtherbriefingandoralargumentandproceedtothemeritsinordertosavethepartiesadditionaltimeandexpense. 7   ׀Wevacatethetrialcourtsorderandremandthecasewithinstructionstoenteranordercompellingtheproductionofthetestifyingappraisersreports.   I.    ThisappealinvolvestwelveinversecondemnationcasesfiledintheCircuitCourtforSumnerCountyarisingoutoftheconstructionofStateHighway52inPortland.ThepropertyownersineachofthesecasesassertthattheStateofTennesseeacquiredinterestsintheirpropertybymisrepresentingtheeffectofthehighwayconstructionontheirremainingproperty.Eachoftheselawsuitsrequestsdamagesforthediminutionofthevalueofthepropertyownersremainingproperty. Duringdiscovery,thepropertyownersservedinterrogatoriesonSumnerCounty,theonlyremainingdefendantaftertheStateofTennesseewasdismissedasaparty,requestingamongotherinformationthenamesoftheexpertappraisersthecountyexpectedtocallasexpertwitnessesandcopiesofanywrittenappraisalreportpreparedbytheexpertforeachaffectedpieceofproperty.Notsurprisingly,thecountysubmittedinterrogatoriestothepropertyownersrequestingessentiallythesameinformation. SumnerCountyrespondedtothepropertyownersinterrogatoriesbystatingthatitintendedtocallLewisC._Garber_Ԁasanexpertappraiserattrial.ItalsoprovidedadditionalinformationconcerningMr._Garber_sappraisalsincluding(1)thedateofeachappraisal,(2)theappraisedvalueofeachpieceofproperty,(3)the totalamountthatwouldconstitutefaircompensationforthelandtakenasindicatedbytheappraisal,and(4)informationconcerningthe_comparables_Ԁonwhichtheappraisalswerebased.However,thecountyobjectedtoproducingMr._Garber_sappraisalreportsonthegroundthatdoingsowascontrarytoTenn.R.Civ.P.26.02(4).Apparently,thepropertyownershavenotyetrespondedtothecountysinterrogatories. ThepropertyownersthenrequestedthetrialcourttocompelthecountytoproduceMr._Garber_sappraisalreportsinordertoassisttheminpreparingtotakeMr._Garber_sdeposition.Thecountyresistedthemotion,andthetrialcourtenteredanorderonOctober17,1997concludingthattherequestedreportswere notdiscoverable,andthattheinformationrequestedisprivileged,aswork_porduct_Ԁ[sic].ThetrialcourtenteredanotherorderonOctober17,1997,grantingthepropertyownersapplicationforpermissiontopursueaninterlocutoryappealonthegroundthatithad beenunabletolocateanyprecedentontheissueofwhetheranexperts[sic]reportisdiscoverablewhenthenonmovingpartyhasstatedintheir[sic]AnswerstoInterrogatoriesthattheexpertintendstotestifyabouthisappraisalreport.@ II.  Issuessurroundingtheproperscopeofdiscoveryincondemnationcasesarenotnewtothiscourt.Thirtyyearsago,inourlastenbancdecision,weinterpretedthediscoverystatutesexistingatthetimetopermitpropertyownerstodeposetheStatesexpertappraisersbutnottorequiretheStatetoproducecopiesoftheexpertappraisers_report_.SeeStateexrel.Packv.WestTennessee_Distrib_.Co.,58Tenn.App.306,31415,430S.W.2d355,359(1968).ThescopeofdiscoveryexpandedsignificantlyaftertheTennesseeSupremeCourtadoptedtheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedurein1970.See_Vythoulkas_Ԁv.VanderbiltUniv.Hosp.,693S.W.2d350,355(Tenn.Ct.App.1985).Thereafter,intheonlyreportedcasedealingwiththediscoveryofappraisalreports,thiscourtheldthatapropertyownerwasentitledtodiscovertheStatesappraisersworksheetsconcerningthevalueofthepropertyownersproperty.SeeStateexrel._Dept_ԀofTranspv.Harvey,680S.W.2d792,794(Tenn.Ct.App.1984).WithoutevenmentioningStateexrel.Packv.WestTenn._Distrib_.Co.,thecourtstatedthat [_w]e_Ԁfindnocaseorstatutewhichmakesprivilegedthepapersofthestateexpertappraiserandwewillcreatenosuchprivilegehere.SeeStateexrel._Dept_ԀofTransp.v.Harvey,680S.W.2dat794. ThediscoveryruleshavebeenfurtherliberalizedsincewedecidedtheStateexrel._Dept_ԀofTransp.v.Harveycase.Now,Tenn.R.Civ.P.26.02(4)(A)(ii)permitspartiestodeposeotherpartiestestifyingexpertsasamatterofright,andTenn.R.Civ.P.26.02(3)permitsthediscoveryofrelevantdocumentsuponashowingthatthepartyseekingdiscoveryhasasubstantialneedfortherequestedmaterialsandwillbeunabletoobtaintheirequivalentwithoutunduehardship.Thepropertyownersinthiscasehavesatisfiedtheserequirements.Theydesiretofocustheirdepositionexaminationofthecountystestifyingappraiser,andtheyhavenoothermeansofacquiringhisreport. Theattorneyworkproductdoctrineshouldbenarrowlyconstruedtoavoidimpedingtheliberaldiscoveryprocessenvisionedbythepresentproceduralrules.See_Allendale_ԀMut.Ins.Co.v.BullData_Sys_.,Inc.,152_F.R.D._Ԁ132,135(N.D.Ill.1993).Personsassertingtheworkproductdoctrineasabasisforpreventingthediscoveryofotherwiserelevantevidencehavetheburdenofdemonstratingtheapplicabilityofthedoctrine.SeeResolutionTrustCorp.v._Dabney_,73F.3d262,266(10thCir.1995).Sincereportspreparedbyexpertsinanticipationoftrialarenotcoveredbytheworkproductdoctrine,seeHartfordFireIns.Co.v.PureAirontheLakeLtd.Partnership,154_F.R.D._Ԁ202,206n.6(N.D.Ind.1993);Taylorv.AndersonTullyCo.,151_F.R.D._Ԁ295,296n.1(W.D.Tenn.1993);PearlBrewingCo.v.Jos.SchlitzBrewingCo.,415F.Supp.1122,1137(S.D.Tex.1976),wefindthatthecountydidnotestablishitsworkproductdoctrineclaimand,therefore,thatthetrialcourterredbyoverrulingthepropertyownersmotiontocompel.@ III.      Wevacatetheorder_denying_Ԁthemotiontocompelandremandthecasetothetrial_court_ԀwithdirectionstoenteranordercompellingthecountytoprovidethepropertyownerswiththecopiesofMr._Garber_sappraisalreportsrequestedinparagraph19(c)oftheirinterrogatories.WetaxthecostsofthisappealtoSumnerCounty.       _______________________________       WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGECONCUR:___________________________________HENRYF.TODD,PRESIDINGJUDGEMIDDLESECTION___________________________________BENH._CANTRELL_,JUDGE