Kulich v. Murray
| Decision Date | 13 June 1939 |
| Parties | KULICH v. MURRAY et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Downey, Lipper, Shinn & Keeley, of New York City, for plaintiff.
Andrews, Baird & Shumate, of New York City (James M. Baird, of New York City, of counsel), for defendant MacFadden Publications, Inc.
This is an application on the part of the defendant MacFadden Publications, Inc., and the Zurich General Accident and Liability Insurance Company, Limited, appearing specially herein, for the purpose of vacating the taking of the deposition of the Zurich General Accident and Liability Insurance Company, Limited, and to quash the subpoena served in connection therewith.
The action is brought to recover damages for personal injuries and property damage alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff due to the alleged negligence of the defendants by reason of a collision occurring on or about the 28th of May, 1938; the defendant John Murray, being the owner and operator of an automobile, one of the cars in the collision, and the plaintiff claims that the automobile at that time was being operated by the defendant John Murray in connection with the business of the defendant MacFadden Publications, Inc. The notice of examination asks for the examination of the Zurich General Accident and Liability Insurance Company, Ltd., by the Manager of its Claim Department or any other representative having knowledge of the facts, as a witness on behalf of the plaintiff, upon matters alleged to be material and necessary to the proof of plaintiff's cause of action. It is not important at this time to refer to the matters upon which the examination is sought, except that they refer generally to investigations made by the Insurance Company with reference to the accident and statements taken during said investigation.
The motion is denied on the authority of Bough v. Lee, D.C., S.D.N.Y., 28 F. Supp. 673, decided by Leibell, D. J., March 28, 1939.
Aside from the question of negligence, one of the main questions in this case is whether or not the automobile of the defendant John Murray, at the time of the accident, was being used in the business of the defendant MacFadden Publications, Inc.; and the plaintiff seeks to obtain that information here. Certainly that is relevant and necessary to the trial of the action.
One of the objections on the part of the defendant is that the plaintiff has availed himself of every pre-trial proceeding under the new Federal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Cain v. Barker
...F.R.D. 79 (D.Colo.1951), Gottlieb v. Bresler, 24 F.R.D. 371 (D.C.1959); Whitaker v. Davis, 45 F.R.D. 270 (W.D.Mo.1968), Kulich v. Murray, 28 F.Supp. 675 (S.D.N.Y.1939), Burns v. Mulder, 20 F.R.D. 605 (E.D.Pa.1957), Gordon v. Robinson, 109 F.Supp. 106 (W.D.Pa.1952).1 Ordinarily, facts, infor......
-
Dinter v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
...privileged or qualified privilege work product. See, e.g., Bough v. Lee, 28 F.Supp. 673, 674 (S.D.N.Y.1939); Kulich v. Murray, 28 F.Supp. 675, 676 (S.D.N.Y.1939); Iwamoto v. Hirata, 49 Hawaii 514, 422 P.2d 99, 100 (1966); Rigelman v. Gilligan, 265 Or. 109, 506 P.2d 710, 713 (1973); Jacques ......
-
Heidebrink v. Moriwaki
...sec. 2291.1 See also McDougall v. Dunn, 468 F.2d 468 (4th Cir.1972); Gordon v. Robinson, 109 F.Supp. 106 (W.D.Pa.1952); Kulich v. Murray, 28 F.Supp. 675 (S.D.N.Y.1939); Whitaker v. Davis, 45 F.R.D. 270 (W.D.Mo.1968); Gottlieb v. Bresler, 24 F.R.D. 371 (D.D.C.1959); Burns v. Mulder, 20 F.R.D......
-
Kenealy v. Texas Co.
...cases, Bough v. Lee, S.D.N.Y. March 28, 1939, 28 F.Supp. 673; Bough v. Lee, S.D.N.Y. June 24, 1939, 29 F.Supp. 498; Kulich v. Murray, S.D.N.Y. June 13, 1939, 28 F.Supp. 675; Price v. Levitt, E.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 1939, 29 F.Supp. 164; and although I have great respect for the opinions of the ju......