Opinion
Action by Tighe E. Woods, Housing Expediter, Office of the Housing Expediter, against Mildred Cressman. On plaintiff's objections to defendant's interrogatories, and on defendant's objections to plaintiff's second set of interrogatories.
The District Court, Kirkpatrick, C. J., held that the proper procedure to compel production of original documents was under Federal rule 34, not under rule 33.
Plaintiff's objections sustained, and defendant's objections overruled.
Sydney J. Fires, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.
I. Finkelstein, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.
KIRKPATRICK, Chief Judge.
This is the plaintiff's objections to the defendant's interrogatories. These interrogatories all amount to a request for the production of original documents. The proper procedure is under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 34, 28 U.S.C.A. The De Bruce case (De Bruce v. Pennsylvania R. Co.), D.C., 6 F.R.D. 403, which compels the production of copies under Rule 33 has never been extended beyond statements of witnesses as to facts of which they have knowledge. See United States v. Kohler Co., D.C., 9 F.R.D. 289.
The plaintiff's objections are sustained.
The defendant's objections to the plaintiff's second set of interrogatories are overruled and the defendant is directed to answer these interrogatories.