Legal Opinion
Hare v. Southern Pac. Co.
District Court, N.D. New York
Decided September 27, 1949No. Civ. No. 3445PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FOLEY, District Judge.
The plaintiff by order to show cause seeks dual relief. First, to vacate a notice for the taking of the deposition of the plaintiff served on behalf of the defendant pursuant to Rule 30(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., and, secondly, for an order permitting an inspection and discovery by the plaintiff pursuant to Rule 34 of the same rules “of all the reports, investigations and statements” relative to the accident upon which the action is based.
The relief must be denied as to both requests. Authority is abundant to the effect that priority in the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Grauer v. Schenley Products Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1938
- Rosenblum v. DingfelderDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1941
- Mutual Finance Corp. v. SobolDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1946
- Modigliani Glass Fibers, Inc. v. Glasfloss Mfg. Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 1948
3Cited by3 opinions
- Industrial Commission v. HolohanArizona Supreme Court · 1964
- Pickett v. L. R. Ryan, Inc.District Court, E.D. South Carolina · 1965
- Industrial Commission v. HolohanArizona Supreme Court · 1964