Federal Life Ins. Co. v. Holod, 183.

• Decision Date: 12 January 1940
• Docket Number: No. 183.,183.
• Citation: 30 F. Supp. 713
• Parties: FEDERAL LIFE INS. CO. v. HOLOD.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania

30 F. Supp. 713

FEDERAL LIFE INS. CO. v. HOLOD.

No. 183.

District Court, M. D. Pennsylvania.

January 12, 1940.

O'Malley, Hill, Harris & Harris, of Scranton, Pa., for plaintiff.

Needle, Needle & Needle, of Scranton, Pa., for defendant.

WATSON, District Judge.

This case is before the Court on plaintiff's motion for the production of certain records of the War Department of the United States.

The plaintiff's motion requests an order of this Court directing the defendant to consent to the inspection and examination of certain World War Draft records relating to the defendant, and requiring the defendant to authorize the War Department at Washington, D. C., to furnish certified copies of said records. The motion was served upon the defendant, who filed an answer alleging that the evidence sought is privileged and that the Court is without power to make the order sought.

The Selective Service Regulations, prescribed by the President under the authority vested in him by the terms of the Selective Service Law, 50 U.S.C.A. § 226 note, provide, in section eleven, that the records obtained under the regulations shall be public records and open for public inspection with certain exceptions. It is further provided in section eleven that: "The portions of such records as are hereinbefore held to be confidential shall not without the consent of the registrant, be produced and published in response to any subpoena or summons of any court. * *" The information which the plaintiff desires to obtain by this motion is, of course, that which by the Selective Service Regulations is made confidential and is within the prohibition above quoted.

The restrictions contained in the regulations are still in force and did not expire upon the termination of the war. Harris v. Walsh, 51 App.D.C. 167, 277 F. 569; see also Stein v. Stein, 132 Misc. 886, 230 N.Y.S. 757.

Although it is true that the new rules of Civil Procedure have received a liberal construction for the purpose of requiring disclosure to the fullest extent of matters unless some valid reason appears for the refusal of such a request, they cannot be so construed or enforced as to compel the production of documents which by law are placed beyond the process of the courts. By the terms of Rule 34, 28 U.S.C. A. following section 723c, privileged communications are expressly excepted from the operation of the rule. The order here requested is clearly in violation of the regulation above quoted, inasmuch as the...