D'Ippolito v. Cities Service Co.

S.D. New York

D'Ippolito v. Cities Service Co.

39 F.R.D. 610, 9 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 34, 1965 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9539, 1965 Trade Cas. (CCH) 71,588

DecidedSeptember 8, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 39 F.R.D. 610 (D'Ippolito v. Cities Service Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

D'Ippolito v. Cities Service Co., 39 F.R.D. 610, 9 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 34, 1965 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9539, 1965 Trade Cas. (CCH) 71,588 (S.D.N.Y. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

RYAN, Chief Judge.

Plaintiffs’ application to reargue the Court’s ruling requiring disclosure to defendants of Exhibit 64 is denied. The objection to production of the exhibit for examination was based on the so-called attorney’s work product privilege. However, it is conceded by plaintiff that the exhibit was voluntarily disclosed to attorneys in the Anti-trust Division of the Department of Justice. The government is not a party to this lawsuit, and the disclosure of the document cannot be termed as an interchange of information between counsel on the same side of the litigation.

Any privilege that may have attached was destroyed by the voluntary act of disclosure. Plaintiffs, in seeking reargument, ask for a broad ruling to be applicable to examinations hereafter to be conducted of defendants. No such rule is possible. Each document to which privilege is claimed must be separately considered.

For the moment, it suffices to rule that no privilege attaches to Exhibit 64, and therefore it shall be turned over to defendants within 10 days. So ordered.

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

RYAN, Chief Judge.

Plaintiffs’ application to reargue the Court’s ruling requiring disclosure to defendants of Exhibit 64 is denied. The objection to production of the exhibit for examination was based on the so-called attorney’s work product privilege. However, it is conceded by plaintiff that the exhibit was voluntarily disclosed to attorneys in the Anti-trust Division of the Department of Justice. The government is not a party to this lawsuit, and the disclosure of the document cannot be termed as an interchange of information between counsel on the same side of the litigation.

Any privilege that may have attached was destroyed by the voluntary act of disclosure. Plaintiffs, in seeking reargument, ask for a broad ruling to be applicable to examinations hereafter to be conducted of defendants. No such rule is possible. Each document to which privilege is claimed must be separately considered.

For the moment, it suffices to rule that no privilege attaches to Exhibit 64, and therefore it shall be turned over to defendants within 10 days. So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 F.R.D. 610, 9 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 34, 1965 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9539, 1965 Trade Cas. (CCH) 71,588, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dippolito-v-cities-service-co-nysd-1965.