CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA v. Westinghouse Electric Corporation

• Decision Date: 27 April 1962
• Docket Number: 29931.,29922-29924,29928,29920,29930,Civ. A. No. 29810
• Citation: 205 F. Supp. 830
• Parties: CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA, a Municipal Corporation, v. WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION et al., and related cases.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

205 F. Supp. 830

CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA, a Municipal Corporation, v.WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION et al., and related cases.

Civ. A. Nos. 29810, 29920, 29922-29924, 29928, 29930, 29931.

United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania.

April 27, 1962.

David Berger, Harold E. Kohn, Dilworth, Paxson, Kalish, Kohn & Dilks, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

Philip Price, Dechert, Price & Rhoads, Philadelphia, Pa., for I-T-E Circuit Breaker Co.

Louis J. Goffman, Wolf, Block, Schorr & Solis-Cohen, Philadelphia, Pa., Jacob Imberman, New York City, for Federal Pacific Electric Co.

Edward W. Mullinix, Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis, Philadelphia, Pa., for Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co.

Philip H. Strubing, Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz, Philadelphia, Pa., for Westinghouse Electric Co.

Henry W. Sawyer, III, Drinker, Biddle & Reath, Philadelphia, Pa., for General Electric Co.

Michael von Moschzisker, Wolf, Block, Schorr & Solis-Cohen, Philadelphia, Pa., for Westinghouse Electric Corp.

KIRKPATRICK, District Judge.

It is unnecessary to recount the procedural steps by which this matter came before the court for decision.Oral rulings have been made by the Court(April 16, 1962), and I think it advisable to put the reasons for them in the form of a brief memorandum opinion.

In substance, the interrogatories addressed to the defendants ask for detailed information (date, place, individuals present, etc.) of meetings of officials of the defendant corporations and competitors at which prices, territories and terms of sale of electrical equipment were discussed.The answers filed by the defendants refuse to give most of the information asked for, invoking the attorney-client privilege.Typical answers state (a) that the facts asked for are not known to the "chief executive officers and directors" of the company and (b) that the only information relevant to the interrogatories (other than a modicum of factual background voluntarily disclosed) is in the possession of counsel and was obtained by counsel in interviews conducted by him with employees of the company in order to give the company (in some cases, the employees interviewed) legal advice and prepare for the defense of criminal prosecutions.

It is too clear to require much discussion that a corporation cannot disclaim knowledge of a fact on the ground that the fact in question has not been communicated to its chief executive officers and board of directors.A corporation acquires knowledge...