Kurt M. Jachmann Co. v. Hartley, Cooper & Co.
Kurt M. Jachmann Co. v. Hartley, Cooper & Co.
Opinion of the Court
This motion is made by a witness under Rule 30(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. The witness seeks to be relieved from compliance with those parts of a subpoena duces tecum which require him to produce an agency agreement with Lloyd’s of London, and correspondence with and reports to Mendes & Mount, Esqs., concerning a claim made by Nour Trading Company (Nour).
During argument on the motion this Court examined the agreement, relieved
It is not necessary for me to determine whether the witness could refuse to produce the requested documents in the case instituted by Nour. In this case, I believe that it must do so under certain safeguards which will be stated later. The witness admits that it is regularly engaged in the business of holding surveys of damaged cargo which result in reports similar to those made in the Nour matter. It does not claim that the documents asked for are irrelevant to this case. Indeed, it produced claim files involving other matters in accordance with the request of the same subpoena to which it objects. Under these circumstances it should produce the requested documents, but the order that it produce the documents should contain adequate safeguards which will insure that the reports and correspondence will not be disclosed to third persons who may use them in connection with the pending case instituted by Nour.
The requests for allowances of counsel fees under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are denied.
Settle order on notice.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- KURT M. JACHMANN CO., Inc. v. HARTLEY, COOPER & CO., Ltd., Harold B. Hill, George de H. Vaizey and Bevington, Vaizey & Foster, Ltd.
- Status
- Published