4 F.R.D. 479 (3rd Cir. 1945), C. A. 3511, Hickman v. Taylor

Docket Nº:Civil Action 3511.
Citation:4 F.R.D. 479
Opinion Judge:KIRKPATRICK, District Judge.
Party Name:HICKMAN v. TAYLOR et al.
Attorney:Freedman, Landy & Lorry, of Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff. Shields, Clark, Brown & McCown, of Philadelphia, Pa., for Taylor & Anderson. Guckes, Shrader & Burtt, of Philadelphia, Pa., for Baltimore & O. R. Co.
Judge Panel:Before KIRKPATRICK, WELSH, KALODNER, BARD, and GANEY, District Judges.
Case Date:July 30, 1945
Court:United States District Courts, 3th Circuit, Eastern District of Pennsylvania
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 479

4 F.R.D. 479 (E.D.Pa. 1945)

HICKMAN

v.

TAYLOR et al.

Civil Action No. 3511.

United States District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.

July 30, 1945

Action under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.A. § 688, by George E. Hickman, as administrator of the estate of Norman E. Hickman, deceased, against John M. Taylor and George H. Anderson, individually and trading as Taylor & Anderson Towing & Lighterage Company, and another, to recover for death of plaintiff's decedent. Sur exceptions to interrogatories filed by plaintiff.

Order in accordance with opinion.

Page 480

Freedman, Landy & Lorry, of Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

Shields, Clark, Brown & McCown, of Philadelphia, Pa., for Taylor & Anderson.

Guckes, Shrader & Burtt, of Philadelphia, Pa., for Baltimore & O. R. Co.

Before KIRKPATRICK, WELSH, KALODNER, BARD, and GANEY, District Judges.

KIRKPATRICK, District Judge.

The plaintiff's husband was one of five seamen who were drowned when the Tug ‘ J. M. Taylor,’ capsized, on February 6, 1943. On November 26, 1943, she began this suit under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.A. § 688, to recover damages for his death, and thereafter filed 39 interrogatories, of which No. 38 is as follows:

‘ State whether any statements of the members of the crews of the Tugs ‘ J. M. Taylor’ and ‘ Philadelphia’ or of any other vessel were taken in connection with the towing of the car float and the sinking of the Tug ‘ John M. Taylor.’ Attach hereto exact copies of all such statements if in writing, and if oral, set forth in detail the exact provisions of any such oral statements or reports.'

The defendants Taylor & Anderson excepted to this interrogatory as ‘ calling for privileged matter obtained in preparation for litigation.’

Supplemental interrogatories, including a request for the production of ‘ memoranda,’ and intended to elicit further information

Page 481

about the statements, were also excepted to. Mr. Fortenbaugh, counsel for the defendants, Taylor & Anderson, then filed a written statement and later testified by deposition, fully disclosing how and for what purposes the statements were obtained, which statement of counsel and testimony were, by stipulation, made part of the record, as a fact basis for the Court's ruling upon the question raised by the exceptions.

The question is whether a party, under the circumstances of this case, should be required to produce written statements of certain witnesses and memoranda of oral statements of others, and to disclose the substance of certain oral statements, all statements having been made to the party's attorney. The defendant has made no point of the plaintiff's procedure by interrogatories under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 33, 28 U.S.C.A. following section...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP