Opinion
Action by one Castro against A. H. Bull & Company on objections to interrogatories.
Order in accordance with opinion.
Following is the Interrogatory referred to: ‘ 3. Attach true copies of all written statements obtained from any and all persons who purport to be witnesses or have any knowledge regarding the said accident and/or injuries, or any matter connected therewith or related thereto, and true copies of memoranda of any oral statements which you, or your representatives have obtained or received from any such persons.’
Benjamin B. Sterling, of New York City (Marvin Schwartz, of Brooklyn, N.Y., of counsel), for plaintiff.
Kirlin, Campbell, Hickox & Keating, of New York City (Walter X. Connor, of New York City, and Edward J. Sullivan, of Buffalo, N.Y., of counsel), for defendant.
CONGER, District Judge.
The objection to interrogatory No. 3 is sustained. I do not regard the view expressed on this point in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as proper. See, for example, De Bruce v. Pennsylvania R. Co., D.C.E.D. Pa.1947, 6 F.R.D. 403. The Supreme Court in Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, page 504,67 S.Ct. 385, page 390,91 L.Ed. 451, stated that ‘ Rule 33 [Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A.], does not make provision for such production, even when sought in connection with permissible interrogatories.’ This is obviously true, and I so hold.
The other objections were disposed of on the argument.
Settle order