Sisco v. Chas. Kurz & Co.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
WELSH, District Judge.
The instant motion to produce under the provisions of Admiralty Rule 32, 28 U.S. C.A., was filed by libellant. The respondent has interposed several objections to the motion of libellant. These are discussed and disposed of below.
1. On the ground that libellant has failed to show “good cause” respondent objects to the production of the letter .adr dressed to respondent dated December 2, 1949, signed by the Captain, the statement of Chief Mate dated December 2, 1949, and the. statement signed by the libellant in the possession of the respondent.
*527It is clear that a showing…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Alltmont v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1950
- Hudalla v. Chicago, M., S. P. & P. R.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1950
- Raudenbush v. Reading Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1950