A warehouse man was negligently injured by a defendant corporation’s employee. An executive of the corporation sent a letter to its carrier six days after the accident. Part 1 of the letter included the executive’s rendition of the allegedly negligent employee’s description of the accident. Part 2 discussed the corporation’s applicable safety procedures and policies. Although the trial court concluded that that the statement was made in anticipation of litigation, it compelled discovery of the letter–even with respect to Part 2. The appellate court found no error on the part of the trial court. (Because the corporation failed to provide the reporter’s record, the ruling in this case may be limited.) See In re Team Transp., Inc., 996 S.W.2d 256 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, orig. proceeding).

W&G Trucking involved a wrongful death suit arising out of a trucking accident. Two days after the accident, the defendant truck driver provided a statement to the defendant trucking company’s insurance investigator. Although this statement was obtained in anticipation of litigation, the defendants were ordered to disclose the statement. The appellate court rejected the attorney client privilege argument, because the record failed to establish certain elements of the privilege. See In re W&G Trucking, Inc., 990 S.W.2d 473 (Tex. App.–Beaumont 1999, orig. proceeding).

A plaintiff filed a motion to compel disclosure of a statement provided by a defendant to his insurance carrier, which statement was taken in anticipation of litigation following a motor vehicle accident. The defendant cited comments to the new discovery rules and argued that the work product privilege protected his statement from disclosure. The appellate court disagreed, holding that when the only privilege asserted is "work product," a witness statement is not protected from discovery. Unlike Team Transport and W&G Trucking, this case squarely rejects an assertion of work product protection for a party’s own statement; however, the appellate court does not provide a detailed analysis of party-communication issues. See In re Jimenez, 4 S.W.3d 894 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, orig. proceeding).