Legal Opinion
Rofail v. United States
District Court, E.D. New York
Decided February 1, 2005No. CV-04-2502(CBA)(JMA)PublishedCited by 40 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
AZRACK, United States Magistrate Judge.
Defendant United States of America moves pursuant to Rule 26(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for a protective order barring disclosure of certain materials until after plaintiff George Rofail has been deposed. For the reasons below, the motion is denied.
BACKGROUND
This is a personal injury case brought under the Jones Act. See 46 U.S.C.App. § 688 (2004). Ship personnel took plaintiffs statement soon after plaintiffs accident aboard the USNS Denebola on January 15, 2003. Ship personnel also took statements from other crew…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Seattle Times Co. v. RhinehartSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- United States v. Procter & Gamble Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1958
- Guy O. Dove, Iii, Spargos Mining Nl v. Atlantic Capital CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1992
- Cruden v. Bank of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1992
- Warfield Milo Goings v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1967
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by40 opinions
- Gordon v. Target Corp.District Court, E.D. New York · 2016
- Jerolimo v. Physicians for Women, P.C.District Court, D. Connecticut · 2006
- Costa v. AFGO Mechanical Services, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 2006
- Fausto v. Credigy Services Corp.District Court, N.D. California · 2008
- 6340 NB LLC v. Capital One, N.A.District Court, E.D. New York · 2022
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.