Legal Opinion

Heitmann v. Concrete Pipe Machinery

District Court, E.D. Missouri

Decided August 12, 1983No. 82-2008C(1)PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM

NANGLE, District Judge.

This case is now before this Court on the motion of plaintiff to compel production of a report of Fred Baggerman of Zurheide and Herrmann, Inc. Although defendant originally resisted production of the Baggerman report on the ground of work product, its current position is that the discover-ability of this report is governed by the non-testifying expert provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4)(B). Defendant contends that the report is not discoverable because it was prepared for defendant in anticipation of litigation by an expert that it does not…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. ILC Peripherals Leasing Corp. v. International Business Machines Corp.District Court, N.D. California · 1977
  2. Quadrini v. Sikorsky Aircraft DivisionDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 1977
  3. Breedlove v. Beech Aircraft Corp.District Court, N.D. Mississippi · 1972

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Kuper v. Lincoln-Union Electric Co.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1996
  2. Johnson v. GmeinderDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 2000
  3. Employer's Reinsurance Corp. v. Clarendon National InsuranceDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 2003
  4. Papke v. HarbertSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 2007
  5. Intermedics, Inc. v. Ventritex, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 1991

13 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