Harkobusic v. General American Transportation Corp.
District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
MARSH, District Judge.
The defendant has filed a “Motion for Production of Documents”, pursuant to Rule 34, Fed.R.Civ.P., 28 U.S.C., by which it seeks to obtain correspondence between plaintiff and his brother-in-law, and various attorneys. The plaintiff opposes the motion on the ground that the correspondence is within the attorney-client privilege,1 and that it was written “looking to the preparation and presentation of the within case”. Counsel for the parties agreed that these letters with their enclosures, contained in 15 exhibits, be submitted to the court for examination to facilitate…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Hickman v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Alltmont v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1950
- Georgia-Pacific Corporation v. United States Plywood CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1958
- Alexander v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- United States v. 5 Cases, More or Less, Containing "Figlia Mia Brand", Etc. (5 Cases)Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1950
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Parkinson v. Phonex Corp.District Court, D. Utah · 1994
- United States v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1967
- Dempsey v. Bucknell UniversityDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2013
- Modanlo v. Ahan (In Re Modanlo)District Court, D. Maryland · 2006
- BROPHY v. THE HARTLEY DOERING GROUP, INC.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2020
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.