## Facts

- The United States brought a major civil antitrust action against International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) in the Southern District of New York, presided over by Chief Judge David N. Edelstein.
- The Government maintained a large list of prospective trial witnesses; IBM sought to conduct informal, pretrial interviews of some listed witnesses.
- After learning of IBM’s interview efforts, the Government directed at least two prospective witnesses (Mr. Kraft and Lt. General Phillips) not to proceed with scheduled interviews, and both cancelled.
- The Government asserted IBM was “harassing” its witnesses but did not present supporting proof from any witness or counsel.
- Judge Edelstein imposed conditions on interviewing witnesses outside the presence of opposing counsel, requiring that any such interview be conducted with a stenographer so it could be transcribed and made available to the court.
- IBM argued the conditions were unworkable and significantly burdened trial preparation, particularly because coordinating witnesses, opposing counsel, and a stenographer was difficult.
- IBM petitioned the Second Circuit for a writ of mandamus directing the district judge to vacate the interview restrictions.

## Issues

1. Whether a district judge may restrict pretrial interviews of adverse witnesses by requiring the presence of opposing counsel or a stenographer and making a transcript available to the court.
2. Whether mandamus is an appropriate remedy to correct such interview restrictions during ongoing litigation.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit (per curiam) granted mandamus.
- The court held the district judge could not impose the challenged restrictions on counsel’s pretrial interviews of adverse witnesses on this record.
- The court directed that the interview conditions be vacated.

## Legal Principles

- Counsel generally has a right to seek informal, voluntary pretrial interviews of adverse witnesses as part of trial preparation.
- A court may not convert informal interviews into quasi-depositions by requiring opposing counsel’s presence, stenographic recording, or automatic court access to interview transcripts absent a demonstrated need.
- Protective limits on witness access require a factual basis (such as evidence of harassment or abuse), not unsupported allegations.
- Mandamus may issue to correct a clear abuse of discretion that materially interferes with trial preparation and lacks an adequate remedy through post-judgment appeal.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit used mandamus to set aside a district court’s pretrial witness-interview conditions, holding that absent evidentiary support for claimed harassment, counsel may interview adverse witnesses without compulsory attendance of opposing counsel, stenographic recording, or routine disclosure of interview transcripts to the court.


International Bus. Machs. Corp. v. Edelstein, 526 F.2d 37 (2d Cir. 1975)