Bennett v. Waterman SS Corporation

29 F. Supp. 506, 1939 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2352
District Court, S.D. New York·Decided October 5, 1939·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

COXE, District Judge.

This motion is similar to the ones considered in Kenealy v. Texas Company, D. *507 C., 29 F.Supp. 502, and in Fluxgold v. United States Lines Company, D.C., 29 F.Supp. 506, and will be disposed of as indicated in the opinions in those cases. There is, however, an added item not found in the motion papers of the other cases asking for the production for inspection of the following: “All statements made by witnesses and any and all persons to the insurance company as to the manner of the happening of the accident”.

The objection of the defendants to the production of these statements is sustained for the reasons given in the opinion in the Kenealy case with respect to the statements of fellow employees as to the accident.

The motion of the plaintiff is granted only to the limited extent above indicated.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Bennett v. Waterman SS Corporation, 29 F. Supp. 506, 1939 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2352 (S.D.N.Y. 1939).

29 F. Supp. 506 (Bennett v. Waterman SS Corporation) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Stark v. American Dredging Co.
3 F.R.D. 300 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1943)
French v. Zalstem-Zalessky
1 F.R.D. 508 (S.D. New York, 1940)
State v. Pan-American Bus Lines, Inc.
1 F.R.D. 213 (D. Maryland, 1940)
Gitto v. "Italia", Societa Anonima Di Navigazione
31 F. Supp. 567 (E.D. New York, 1940)