Case ID: frd_9/html/0084-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "CONGER, District Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CASTRO v. A. H. BULL & CO.
    United States District Court S. D. New York.
    Jan. 13, 1949.
    Benjamin B. Sterling, of New York City (Marvin Schwartz, of Brooklyn, N. Y., of counsel), for plaintiff.
    Kirlin, Campbell, Hickox & Keating, of New York City (Walter X. Connor, of New York City, and Edward J. Sullivan, of Buffalo, N. Y., of counsel), for defendant.
   CONGER, District Judge.

The objection to interrogatory No. 3 is sustained. I do not regard the view expressed on this point in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as proper. See, for example, De Bruce v. Pennsylvania R. Co., D.C.E.D.Pa.1947, 6 F.R.D. 403. The Supreme Court in Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, page 504, 67 S.Ct. 385, page 390, 91 L.Ed. 451, stated that “Rule 33 [Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S. C.A.], does not make provision for such production, even when sought in connection with permissible interrogatories.” This is obviously true, and I so hold.

The other objections were disposed of on the argument.

Settle order