Legal Opinion
Thiel v. Southern Pac. Co.
District Court, N.D. California
Decided September 13, 1946No. 21780PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HARRIS, District Judge.
An oral motion for an inspection of statements and reports allegedly made by defendant’s employees, designated members of the train crew, was presented during the pretrial conference, and the Court, after a consideration of the memoranda of law submitted by counsel and the representations made by counsel for both parties, regularly denied the motion.
Thereafter, and during the course of the trial, plaintiff filed a written notice of motion predicated on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 34, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, to produce statements of employees…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Palmer v. HoffmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
- Hoffman v. PalmerCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1942
- Hickman v. TaylorCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1945
- McCarthy v. PalmerDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1939
- Kenealy v. Texas Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1939
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. AllenSupreme Court of Florida · 1949
- Thiel v. Southern Pac. Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1948