Legal Opinion

Sacco v. Greyhound Corp.

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

Decided September 30, 1959No. Civ. A. No. 16783PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MARSH, District Judge.

Plaintiffs filed a “Motion for Discovery and Production of Documents Pursuant to Rule 34”, seeking an order compelling the defendant to produce various documents and to permit plaintiff to inspect the bus involved in the accident out of which this suit arose. The defendant filed objections to certain parts of the motion on the grounds that the items sought were “part of the investigation of the defendant, and therefore privileged”.

We think the motion should be denied as to all matters sought by plaintiffs except permission to inspect the bus.

It is not necessary to pass…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Hickman v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
  2. Alltmont v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1950
  3. Martin v. Capital Transit Co.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1948

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Scuderi v. Boston InsuranceDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1964
  2. Harkobusic v. General American Transportation Corp.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1962
  3. Kirkpatrick v. Industrial CommissionCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1969
  4. Flickinger v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1965
  5. Vaughn v. Chrysler Corp.District Court, W.D. Oklahoma · 1969

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API