Skip to main content

H. Kessler & Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

N.D. Ga.September 24, 1971No. Civ. A. No. 14770Cited 13 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Moye
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
motion to dismiss
State
Georgia

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

The court granted the defendant's motion to vacate deposition subpoenas, finding that expert witnesses retained by defendants were protected from discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4)(B) as work product prepared in anticipation of litigation, and that a dual purpose (litigation preparation and product improvement) does not negate this protection.

What This Ruling Means

**Court Protects Company's Expert Witnesses from Having to Testify** This case involved a dispute over whether the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) could force experts hired by American Motors Corporation to give testimony under oath (called depositions). The EEOC was investigating employment practices and wanted to question experts that American Motors had hired to help with their legal defense. The court ruled in favor of American Motors, saying the company's experts were protected from being forced to testify. The judge found that these experts were hired specifically to help prepare for the lawsuit, making their work confidential "work product." The court also decided that even if the experts were doing double duty—helping with the lawsuit AND helping improve company practices—this didn't eliminate the legal protection. **What This Means for Workers:** This ruling makes it harder for workers and government agencies like the EEOC to get information from companies during employment disputes. When companies hire experts to help defend against discrimination or other workplace claims, those experts' findings and opinions are generally protected from discovery. This can limit workers' ability to access potentially helpful evidence, though they can still pursue their cases through other means and evidence sources.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.