In In the Matter of the Complaint of American River Transportation Co., No. 4:11-cv-00523-JAR (E.D. Mo. Apr. 20, 2017), the district court held that witness statements drafted by counsel and signed by the witnesses were not protected work product.  In this matter, four barges separated from a ship owned by ARTCO and damaged a lock and dam.  The United States brought an action against ARTCO, seeking $10 million in damages.  Shortly after the barge event, ARTCO’s lawyers investigated the incident and interviewed crewmembers.  The lawyers then reduced the interviews to written statements, which the crewmembers reviewed and signed.  The government sought discovery of the witness statements, and ARTCO asserted that the statements were protected work product.  The court ordered ARTCO to produce the statements.  Although notes and memoranda an attorney prepares from a witness interview are protected work product, because they tend to reveal the attorney’s legal conclusions, the court found that the statements in this case were recitations of facts surrounding the barge event that had been adopted by the crewmembers as their own statements when they reviewed and signed them.  The court cited case law indicating that a majority of district courts have concluded that signed witness statements and affidavits obtained in anticipation of litigation must be disclosed in discovery.