Wolf v. Dickinson
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
WELSH, District Judge.
Defendant’s objections to interrogatories 3, 5, 7, 10, 11, 14, 16(e) and 17(e) which call for the production of copies of documents and photographs or summaries of oral statements are so well taken that said interrogatories have been withdrawn by the plaintiff.
Defendant’s objection to interrogatory 6 is sustained because it in effect asks for the production of copies of documents or for a summary of oral statements. Plaintiff is entitled to know the names of persons giving statements, oral or written or he is entitled to know the facts sought by the interrogatory, but he…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Stabilus v. Haynsworth, Baldwin, Johnson & GreavesDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1992
- Taggart v. Vermont Transportation Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1963
- Novick v. Pennsylvania RailroadDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1955
- Pare v. RodriqueCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1969
- Gray v. WhiteRichmond City Circuit Court · 1970