[1] Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, a relatively recent innovation at the time this case was originally filed, granted mandatory discovery of certain documents and materials when requested.

The fifth claimant, petitioner herein, brought suit in a federal court under the Jones Act on November 26, 1943, naming as defendants the two tug owners, individually and as partners, and the railroad.

The issue in this case was whether the district court erred in requiring the production of documents obtained or prepared by retained counsel in anticipation of litigation, absent necessity or other circumstances.

The respondent refused to produce documents on the ground that they were not subject to discovery, and were protected as privileged matter obtained in preparation for litigation.

Petitioner countered that the deposition-discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were designed to enable the parties to discover true facts and compel their disclosure wherever they may be found.

Individuals, on the other hand, might have to wait for some time before retaining a lawyer, making information collected before the retention of counsel available to the corporate defendant.

In light of this, the district court erred in requiring the production of documents obtained or prepared by retained counsel in anticipation of litigation absent necessity or other circumstances.