Legal Opinion

Lott v. Seaboard Systems Railroad

District Court, S.D. Georgia

Decided October 16, 1985No. Nos. CV584-076 to CV584-089 and CV584-107PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER

EDENFIELD, District Judge.

Before the Court is what the parties have termed “plaintiffs’ second motion to compel.”

I. Background

This motion to compel arises out of the August 22, 1985 deposition of Mr. Walter K. Hunt, a claims manager for defendant Seaboard Systems Railroad, Inc. (hereinafter “SBD”). SBD listed Mr. Hunt as a witness who would testify at trial, and plaintiffs noticed his deposition. During the course of the deposition, plaintiffs attempted to examine Mr. Hunt regarding information he had gathered about the use of asbestos in SBD’s Waycross shops. Specifically, plaintiffs…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Hickman v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
  2. Upjohn Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  3. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA v. Westinghouse Electric CorporationDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1962
  4. United States v. OsbornCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1977
  5. Byers v. BurlesonDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1983

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Matter of Firestorm 1991Washington Supreme Court · 1996
  2. Shipes v. BIC Corp.District Court, M.D. Georgia · 1994
  3. In re Election of November 6, 1990 for the Office of Attorney GeneralOhio Supreme Court · 1991
  4. Briggs & Stratton Corp. v. Concrete Sales & ServicesDistrict Court, M.D. Georgia · 1997
  5. In re Firestorm 1991Washington Supreme Court · 1996

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API