Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

12 F.R.D. 183

Bonefond v. Borden Co.

U.S. District Court

Decided January 19, 1952

U.S. District Court · decided 1952-01-19

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently October 1956

1 district · 1 state decisions

Relies on Bifferato v. States Marine Corp.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1952-01-19

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

WEINFELD, District Judge.

¶1Plaintiff has failed to show good cause for the production of the statements of the captain and the crew member requested in Item “(f)”. It appears that plaintiff’s attorney has obtained statements from these witnesses. If further information is required, their depositions may be taken. In the event plaintiff is unable to obtain their depositions, he may move for the production of their statements upon a showing of good cause.

¶2As to Item “(g)”, no claim is made that the investigations and reports concerning the accident constitute the work product of defendant’s attorney. Nevertheless, good cause must be shown for their production and such showing has not been made. Were these reports made by defendant’s officers in the regular course of business, their production could be demanded. But the reports sought do not fall into that category and it is well recognized that a party must prepare his own case for trial, and absent unusual circumstances, may not obtain the fruits of his adversary’s trial preparations. Bifferato v. States Marine Corp., D.C., 11 F.R.D. 44. This aspect of the motion is denied without prejudice to renewal upon a showing of good cause.

¶3Settle order on notice.

/12/frd/183 · .json · Public domain