Legal Opinion
Fluxgold v. United States Lines Co.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided October 5, 1939PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
COXE, District Judge.
The only difference between this motion and the one under consideration in Kenealy v. Texas Company, D.C., 29 F.Supp. 502, is that the defendant here objects to an additional item which was not contested in the Kenealy case. This item asks for the production for inspection of Item 2. “All statements of the captain or any other officer aboard the vessel as to the accident”.
These statements are open to the same objection as the statements of fellow employees considered in the Kenealy case. I, therefore, sustain the objection of the défendant to the production of the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Kenealy v. Texas Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1939
3Cited by5 opinions
- Mulligan v. Eastern S. S. Lines, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1946
- French v. Zalstem-ZalesskyDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1940
- State v. Pan-American Bus Lines, Inc.District Court, D. Maryland · 1940
- Bennett v. Waterman SS CorporationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1939
- Gitto v. "Italia", Societa Anonima Di NavigazioneDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1940