Legal Opinion

Kientzy v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.

District Court, E.D. Missouri

Decided January 30, 1991No. 90-584 C(1)PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*571MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DAVID D. NOCE, United States Magistrate Judge.

This action is before the Court upon the motion of Therese Clemente for an order, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1), protecting from pretrial discovery, by both plaintiff and defendant, the communications she received in her position as a company ombudsman of defendant McDonnell Douglas Corporation (“MDC”). MDC argues in support of Clemente’s position. Plaintiff argues that any such ombudsman privilege should not include the information sought. In ruling on this motion, the Court has considered the affidavits and…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Trammel v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  2. In Re Dr. John Doe, M.D., a Witness Before the January 1982 Additional Grand Jury. Dr. John Doe, M.D. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1983
  3. Mattson v. Cuyuna Ore CompanyDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1959
  4. Shabazz v. ScurrDistrict Court, S.D. Iowa · 1987

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Frank J. Carman v. McDonnell Douglas CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1997
  2. Garstang v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
  3. Ombudsman Services of Northern California v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
  4. Frank J. Carman v. McDonnell DouglasCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1997

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

Powered by the Exa API