U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 1948

Sachs v. Aluminum Co. of America

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Decided April 23, 1948 · Hicks, Allen, Martin

167 F.2d 570; 77 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 649; 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 4094 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Howard F. Burns, of Cleveland, Ohio (William H. Webb, of Pittsburgh, Pa.f Clarence B. Zewadski, of Detroit, Mich., and Howard F. Burns, of Cleveland, Ohio, on the brief), for appellant., Drury W. Cooper, of New York City (D. W. Cooper, and W. D. Keith, both of New York City, John W. Meyer, of Cleveland, Ohio, and R. R. Kramer, of Knoxville, Tenn., on the brief), for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

26 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Lutz v. John Bouchard & Sons Co. (Tenn. Ct. App. 1974)
United States v. Horace Meyer (9th Cir. 1968)
Sanford Construction Co. v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Sales, Inc. (District Court, E.D. Kentucky 1968)
United States v. John R. Piquette Corp. (District Court, E.D. Michigan 1971)
United States v. 23.76 Acres of Land (District Court, D. Maryland 1963)
Security Industries, Inc. v. Fickus (Alaska 1968)
State Ex Rel. Willey v. Whitman (Ariz. 1962)
Maginnis v. Westinghouse Electric Corporation (United States District Court Eastern District of Louisiana 1962)
United States v. NYSCO Laboratories, Inc. (District Court, E.D. New York 1960)
Leding v. United States Rubber Co. (District Court, D. Montana 1959)
United States v. Real Property Known & Numbered As 2847 Chartiers Avenue (District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania 1992)
Graham v. Gielchinsky (N.J. 1991)
Hanks v. Ranson, Swan & Burch, Ltd. (La. 1976)
Roberson v. Great American Insurance (United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia 1969)
State Ex Rel. State Highway Commission v. Steinkraus (N.M. 1966)
Lehnhard v. Moore (Tex. 1966)
Franks v. National Dairy Products Corp. (District Court, W.D. Texas 1966)
United States v. 364.82 Acres of Land (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 1965)
Crist v. Iowa State Highway Commission (Iowa 1963)
Hoagland v. Tennessee Valley Authority (District Court, E.D. Tennessee 1963)
State Road Department v. Shell (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1960)
White Pine Copper Co. v. Continental Insurance Co. (District Court, W.D. Michigan 1958)
Broadway & Ninety-Sixth Street Realty Co. v. Loew's Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 1958)
Empire Box Corp. of Stroudsburg v. Illinois Cereal Mills (Superior Court of Delaware 1952)
Kendall v. United Air Lines, Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 1949)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Upon due consideration of the record and the briefs and oral arguments of the attorneys in this cause, we are of opinion that the district judge properly adjudged Dr. George Sachs in contempt for his neglect and refusal to obey the court’s directions that he answer certain questions propounded to him by counsel for the Aluminum Company of America in the taking of his deposition.

Dr. Sachs is not an attorney but is an expert in X-ray metallography, who was engaged by counsel for the Cold Metal Process Company to make certain tests and X-ray photographs of samples of metal furnished him. His services were procured in preparation for the trial of a patent case. The information obtained by Dr. Sachs is not deemed to fall within the attorney-client privilege protecting the “work product of the lawyer.” This information appears to be essential to a vital issue in the case and. is evidentiary in character.

We think, therefore, that, as correctly reasoned by the district judge, Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 67 S.Ct. 385, does not sustain the position of appellant that the witness, Sachs, was privileged to decline to divulge the requested information by refusing to answer the questions put to him. The obvious purpose of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723, to broaden the scope of inquiry of an adverse witness or party without vouching for his credibility gain *571 says the thought that the attorney-client privilege should be liberally extended to cover information sought of one who is not a lawyer, but has merely been retained by an attorney-at-law as an expert in a scientific field. The primary concern of courts of justice is to elicit truth essential to correct adjudication.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.