Whitkop v. Baldwin

1 F.R.D. 169, 1 Fed. R. Serv. 431, 1939 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1670
District Court, D. Massachusetts·Decided May 1, 1939·No. No. 7072·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

McLELLAN, District Judge.

The following statement may be taken, transcribed and filed with the papers in the case.

This motion applies to Interrogatories 23, 24 and 25. Interrogatory 23 seeks the name and addresses of the persons who had employed and done business with the plaintiff prior to the time of the alleged publication referred to in the plaintiff’s declaration; Interrogatory 24. seeks in detail the names of the plaintiff’s employers since the summer of 1936; and Interrogatory 25 seeks dates and particulars when former employers ceased to employ and shunned the plaintiff as alleged in the declaration.

In view of the fact that this is an action for slander and the nature of the special damages alleged, these interrogatories should be answered, and it is so ordered. In view of the imminence of a trial in this case, the plaintiff is directed to answer them in or within five (5) days.

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

Whitkop v. Baldwin, 1 F.R.D. 169, 1 Fed. R. Serv. 431, 1939 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1670 (D. Mass. 1939).

1 F.R.D. 169 (Whitkop v. Baldwin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Patton v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co.
38 F.R.D. 428 (N.D. Georgia, 1965)
McNamara v. Erschen
8 F.R.D. 427 (D. Delaware, 1948)
Puerto Rico Water Resources Authority v. District Court of Bayamón
66 P.R. 796 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1947)
Ryan v. Lehigh Valley R.
5 F.R.D. 399 (S.D. New York, 1946)
Roth v. Paramount Film Distributing Corp.
4 F.R.D. 302 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1945)