From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tague v. Delaware, L. & W.R. Co.

United States District Court, E. D. New York
Mar 13, 1946
5 F.R.D. 337 (E.D.N.Y. 1946)

Opinion

         Action by Fred M. Tague against the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Company. On plaintiff's motion for production of certain reports and written statements.

         Motion granted.

         See, also, 5 F.R.D. 323.

          Blank & Convisser, of Brooklyn, N.Y., (William A. Blank, of Brooklyn, N.Y., of counsel), for plaintiff for motion.

          John E. Morrissey, of New York City, for defendant, opposed.


          INCH, District Judge.

         The motion is granted— such requests are largely in the discretion of the court exercised in accordance with the new Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following § 723c. I see nothing ‘ privileged’ as to these reports and written statements. I do not mean by this to decide where oral statements by a client to his attorney is concerned. Nothing of that nature is here presented. These reports and statements may be useful to plaintiff. Connecticut Imp. Co. v. Continental Distilling Corp., D.C., 1 F.R.D. 190.

         Settle order.


Summaries of

Tague v. Delaware, L. & W.R. Co.

United States District Court, E. D. New York
Mar 13, 1946
5 F.R.D. 337 (E.D.N.Y. 1946)
Case details for

Tague v. Delaware, L. & W.R. Co.

Case Details

Full title:TAGUE v. DELAWARE, L. & W. R. CO.

Court:United States District Court, E. D. New York

Date published: Mar 13, 1946

Citations

5 F.R.D. 337 (E.D.N.Y. 1946)

Citing Cases

William A. Meier Glass Co., Inc. v. Anchor Hocking Glass Corp.

In the final analysis, whether a motion under Rule 34 will be granted in a matter directed to the Court's…

The Sultana

"The only statute pertinent here is that now consolidated as 26 U.S.C.A.Int.Rev. Code, § 55. Nothing in this…