English v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Civil Action No. 2016-2335

Background

Sept. 3, 2015: Reginald Burrell was injured after exiting WMATA Bus #2360; he later died. Plaintiff Chimwala English (his daughter) sued WMATA for negligence and survival/wrongful death claims.
Discovery dispute centers on WMATA’s redactions from its investigative file, asserted privileges (self‑evaluative, work product), and WMATA’s refusal to fully answer interrogatories and produce documents about the bus, driver, training, and WMATA’s investigation.
Plaintiff moved to compel (incomplete interrogatory responses, document production, and a compliant privilege log); WMATA sought a protective order to block a Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) deposition; Plaintiff cross‑moved to compel that deposition.
Magistrate judge reviewed submissions, held a hearing, conducted in camera review of redacted materials, and ordered supplemental briefing on work product.
Court found some redactions properly protected by the self‑evaluative privilege (opinions/conclusions), but many redactions withheld non‑privileged factual material and were not established as work product; ordered WMATA to produce non‑privileged factual portions and to supplement many interrogatory and document responses.
Court denied WMATA’s protective order and granted Plaintiff’s cross‑motion: WMATA must designate 30(b)(6) witness(es) on the noticed topics (subject to ordinary deposition limits).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of WMATA privilege redactions (self‑evaluative)	Redactions improperly withhold factual material; request in camera review and production of non‑privileged facts	Redactions shield conclusions/recommendations and post‑accident measures to avoid chilling safety evaluations	Court: Self‑evaluative privilege protects mental impressions/conclusions but not purely factual material; some redactions allowed, many factual redactions must be produced
Work product protection for investigative materials	Materials were not prepared because of litigation; so not work product	WMATA claimed investigative reports prepared in anticipation of litigation; cites prior WMATA cases	Court: WMATA failed to carry burden to show anticipation of litigation; work product claim denied; produce non‑privileged material
Sufficiency of interrogatory and production responses (how Incident occurred, bus specs, driver info, training, defenses)	Requests are relevant and proportional; many responses incomplete or improperly refer to produced files/video without adequate specificity	WMATA relied on video/investigative file as sufficient, asserted privileges and relevance objections, and argued personnel privacy or irrelevance for some items	Court: Most requests relevant; WMATA must supplement: provide narrative account of Incident, full bus specifications, driver characteristics/activities/personnel records related to safety, training documents and facts supporting defenses
Protective order re: Rule 30(b)(6) notice	N/A; Plaintiff seeks deposition	WMATA sought protective order claiming topics duplicative, burdensome, cumulative, and irrelevant; argued discovery should be limited to moment of Incident	Court: Denied protective order; deposition allowable; WMATA must designate witness(es); overlap with written discovery not a valid bar

Key Cases Cited

In re England, 375 F.3d 1169 (D.C. Cir.) (Rule 26 promotes broad discovery)
TRW, Inc. v. FTC, 628 F.2d 207 (D.C. Cir.) (self‑evaluative privilege principles)
First E. Corp. v. Mainwaring, 21 F.3d 465 (D.C. Cir.) (limits on self‑evaluative privilege; public safety context)
Bredice v. Doctors Hosp., 50 F.R.D. 249 (D.D.C.) (origination of self‑evaluative privilege rationale)
United States v. Deloitte LLP, 610 F.3d 129 (D.C. Cir.) (work‑product anticipation of litigation inquiry is case‑specific)
FTC v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharm., Inc., 778 F.3d 142 (D.C. Cir.) (opinion vs. fact work product standard)
United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (Supreme Court) (privileges construed narrowly)