Tague v. Delaware, L. & W. R.
5 F.R.D. 337, 1946 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1563
District Court, E.D. New York·Decided March 13, 1946·No. Civ. A. No. 5757·Published·Cited by 4 cases
Opinion
The motion is granted—such requests are largely in the discretion of the court exercised in accordance with the new Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following § 723c. I see nothing “privileged” as to these reports and written statements. I do not mean by this to decide where oral statements by a client to his attorney is concerned. Nothing of that nature is here presented. These reports and statements may be useful to plaintiff. Connecticut Imp. Co. v. Continental Distilling Corp., D.C., 1 F.R.D. 190.
Settle order.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Tague v. Delaware, L. & W. R., 5 F.R.D. 337, 1946 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1563 (E.D.N.Y. 1946).
5 F.R.D. 337 (Tague v. Delaware, L. & W. R.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
William A. Meier Glass Co. v. Anchor Hocking Glass Corp.
11 F.R.D. 487 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1951)
Hudalla v. Chicago, M., S. P. & P. R.
10 F.R.D. 363 (D. Minnesota, 1950)
The Sultana
77 F. Supp. 287 (W.D. New York, 1948)
Dugger v. Baltimore & O. R.
5 F.R.D. 334 (E.D. New York, 1946)