Legal Opinion

Mattson v. Cuyuna Ore Company

District Court, D. Minnesota

Decided November 24, 1959No. 5-59 Civil 32PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DONOVAN, District Judge.

Defendant seeks by motion to compel answers to certain interrogatoriés propounded at the deposition which depo- xients refused to answer, upon advice of plaintiffs’ counsel. Depositions of plaintiff Marilyn Elizabeth Mattson Berry and her husband, William W. Berry, were taken by defendant on October 23, 1959. The parties stipulated to submit the motion on written memoranda.

Both deponents refused to answer questions concerning the employment of two engineers by the plaintiffs and reports rendered by said engineers on the ground of privilege. Plaintiffs’ counsel contends…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Hickman v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
  2. Baskerville v. BaskervilleSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1956
  3. Schmitt v. EmerySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1942
  4. State v. AndersonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1956
  5. Leding v. United States Rubber Co.District Court, D. Montana · 1959

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Royal G. Bouschor v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1963
  2. United States v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.District Court, District of Columbia · 1978
  3. Maginnis v. Westinghouse Electric CorporationDistrict Court, E.D. Louisiana · 1962
  4. United States v. HankinsDistrict Court, N.D. Mississippi · 1976
  5. Chesson v. HungerfordLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1969

2 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