Legal Opinion

Ford v. Philips Electronics Instruments Co.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided March 1, 1979No. Civ. A. No. 78-813PublishedCited by 27 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM

HUYETT, District Judge.

Defendant’s counsel subpoenaed Frederic J. Prior, who is not a party to this action, to appear for oral deposition. Because of objections raised by plaintiff’s counsel during the course of the deposition, the deposition was suspended, and plaintiff has moved for an order limiting the scope of examination. Plaintiff, relying on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(3) and Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947), contends that defendant’s questioning impermissibly impinged upon protected work product of plaintiff’s attorney.

The dispute…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Hickman v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
  2. Ceco Steel Products Corp. v. H. K. Porter Co.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1962

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. Bowne of New York City, Inc. v. AmBase Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1993
  2. Parks v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1982
  3. Matter of Firestorm 1991Washington Supreme Court · 1996
  4. Fisher v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.District Court, S.D. Indiana · 1993
  5. Protective National Insurance v. Commonwealth InsuranceDistrict Court, D. Nebraska · 1989

22 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