Legal Opinion

Colden v. R. J. Schofield Motors

District Court, N.D. Ohio

Decided April 22, 1952No. Civ. No. 28760PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

JONES, Chief Judge.

Defendant Kaiser-Frazer Corporation, by interrogatory, requests production of a statement or report made in writing by plaintiff’s expert and taken by her attorney. Plaintiff is willing to treat the request as a motion for production of the statement. She objects to the request, how*522ever, on the ground that the statement is part of the “work product” of one of the plaintiff’s attorneys and is therefore privileged against discovery under Rules 33 or 34, 28 U.S.C.A., relying on Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 L. Ed. 451.

Since the decision in Hickman v.…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Hickman v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1947

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Scourtes v. Fred W. Albrecht Grocery Co.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1953
  2. Marine Petroleum Company v. Champlin Petroleum CompanyCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1980
  3. Delcastor, Inc. v. Vail Assocs., Inc.District Court, D. Colorado · 1985
  4. Carpenter-Trant Drilling Co. v. Magnolia Petroleum Corp.District Court, D. Nebraska · 1959
  5. Sanford Construction Co. v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Sales, Inc.District Court, E.D. Kentucky · 1968

9 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