Flynn v. Williams

D. Connecticut

Flynn v. Williams

30 F.R.D. 66, 5 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 584, 1958 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4331

CourtDistrict Court, D. Connecticut

DecidedSeptember 16, 1958

DocketCiv. A. No. 7212

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 30 F.R.D. 66 (Flynn v. Williams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Flynn v. Williams, 30 F.R.D. 66, 5 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 584, 1958 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4331 (D. Conn. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

J. JOSEPH SMITH, District Judge.

Plaintiffs in an automobile negligence personal injury action move for production of a liability insurance policy and endorsements thereon. They stress the practical utility, in evaluating the claim, of knowledge of limits and risks covered. There is much force in the practical argument, but the information sought is beyond the scope of discovery under the rule, for it is not relevant to any present issue in the action between plaintiffs and [67]*67this defendant, nor can it conceivably lead to discovery of evidence on any present issue. Rule 34, F.R.Civ.P., 28 U.S. C.A. Gallimore v. Dye, E.D.Ill., 21 F.R.D. 283; McClure v. Boeger, E.D.Pa., 105 F.Supp. 612; McNelley v. Perry, E.D.Tenn.N.Div., 18 F.R.D. 360. See contra Orgel v. McCurdy, S.D.N.Y., 8 F.R.D. 585, Brackett v. Woodall Food Products, E.D.Tenn.S.Div., 12 F.R.D. 4.

Of course, issues may be raised on supplementary proceedings after verdict to which the information might be relevant. The motion to produce is denied without prejudice.

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

J. JOSEPH SMITH, District Judge.

Plaintiffs in an automobile negligence personal injury action move for production of a liability insurance policy and endorsements thereon. They stress the practical utility, in evaluating the claim, of knowledge of limits and risks covered. There is much force in the practical argument, but the information sought is beyond the scope of discovery under the rule, for it is not relevant to any present issue in the action between plaintiffs and [67]*67this defendant, nor can it conceivably lead to discovery of evidence on any present issue. Rule 34, F.R.Civ.P., 28 U.S. C.A. Gallimore v. Dye, E.D.Ill., 21 F.R.D. 283; McClure v. Boeger, E.D.Pa., 105 F.Supp. 612; McNelley v. Perry, E.D.Tenn.N.Div., 18 F.R.D. 360. See contra Orgel v. McCurdy, S.D.N.Y., 8 F.R.D. 585, Brackett v. Woodall Food Products, E.D.Tenn.S.Div., 12 F.R.D. 4.

Of course, issues may be raised on supplementary proceedings after verdict to which the information might be relevant. The motion to produce is denied without prejudice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 F.R.D. 66, 5 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 584, 1958 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4331, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flynn-v-williams-ctd-1958.

Opinion

J. JOSEPH SMITH, District Judge.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack