Klein v. Dart Drug Corp.

Arlington County Circuit Court

Klein v. Dart Drug Corp.

3 Va. Cir. 451, 1974 Va. Cir. LEXIS 25

CourtArlington County Circuit Court

DecidedSeptember 26, 1974

DocketCase No. (Law) 16458

StatusPublished

This text of 3 Va. Cir. 451 (Klein v. Dart Drug Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Arlington County Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Klein v. Dart Drug Corp., 3 Va. Cir. 451, 1974 Va. Cir. LEXIS 25 (Va. Super. Ct. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

By JUDGE WILLIAM W. WINSTON

This case is before the Court on that portion of the Defendant’s Answer to the Request to Produce which denies the Plaintiff’s right to records, memoranda, correspondence or other documents relating to arrests made by a certain employee of the Defendant while on the job. The records relating to this case have been furnished, but the issue is drawn on other arrests.

The test to be applied is one of relevancy to the subject matter, but inadmissibility is no ground for objection if what is sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Rule 4:l(b)(l). The agent’s prior conduct or his pattern of behavior is no more relevant to the issues in the case than a litigant’s driving record would be in an automobile accident case. However, the agent’s scope of authority or his employer’s instructions to him in arrest situations might, for example, be disclosed by the requested information. In any event the Court cannot say that the requested information might not be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

In the granting of this discovery the Defendant is entitled to a protective order pursuant to which it will not be required to disclose the names and addresses of any other persons arrested or detained.

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

By JUDGE WILLIAM W. WINSTON

This case is before the Court on that portion of the Defendant’s Answer to the Request to Produce which denies the Plaintiff’s right to records, memoranda, correspondence or other documents relating to arrests made by a certain employee of the Defendant while on the job. The records relating to this case have been furnished, but the issue is drawn on other arrests.

The test to be applied is one of relevancy to the subject matter, but inadmissibility is no ground for objection if what is sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Rule 4:l(b)(l). The agent’s prior conduct or his pattern of behavior is no more relevant to the issues in the case than a litigant’s driving record would be in an automobile accident case. However, the agent’s scope of authority or his employer’s instructions to him in arrest situations might, for example, be disclosed by the requested information. In any event the Court cannot say that the requested information might not be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

In the granting of this discovery the Defendant is entitled to a protective order pursuant to which it will not be required to disclose the names and addresses of any other persons arrested or detained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 Va. Cir. 451, 1974 Va. Cir. LEXIS 25, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/klein-v-dart-drug-corp-vaccarlington-1974.