Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Smith v. Central Linen Service

United States District Court for the District of Maryland · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureDiscoveryInterrogatoriesProduction of DocumentsProtective OrdersExpert DiscoveryFRCP 33FRCP 34

Facts

The complaint alleged an injury on February 22, 1961, and suit was filed on July 5, 1963. On September 24, 1965, the plaintiff served interrogatories asking whether he had given any statement to the defendant or its representative; the defendant answered that one of its representatives had obtained a statement dated April 11, 1961. The plaintiff then requested that any signed statement be attached to the interrogatory answers or sent to plaintiff's counsel. Another interrogatory requested copies of any written reports made by expert witnesses the defendant proposed to call.

Issue

May a party use interrogatories to obtain copies of documents notwithstanding Rule 34, and under what circumstances may a party obtain a copy of his own statement previously given to an adverse party or its representative? The court also considered whether the plaintiff could obtain copies of written reports prepared by the defendant's expert witnesses through interrogatories.

Rule

Rule 33 may not be used to circumvent Rule 34's requirement that good cause be shown for inspection and copying of documents when the right to inspect is disputed. However, the mere fact that a party gave a statement to his adversary constitutes good cause entitling him to examine and copy that statement, although the adversary may obtain a protective order permitting it to depose the party before producing the statement. A request through interrogatories for expert reports is not allowed on the reasoning adopted in Knighton.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a negligence action pending in federal court in Baltimore, Nora Bennett serves an interrogatory on Harbor Vale Delivery asking whether it possesses any maintenance logs for the van involved in the accident and, if so, to attach copies to its answers. Harbor Vale objects and says the logs are not discoverable absent a proper showing.

How should the court rule?

Explanation. The majority held that Rule 33 cannot be used to circumvent Rule 34's good-cause requirement for inspection and copying when the right to inspect is disputed. Although parties may informally exchange documents through interrogatories when there is no dispute, once the request is contested the requesting party must proceed under Rule 34 or some equivalent procedure that preserves the opponent's chance to challenge good cause and seek protection. (Derived from Smith v. Central Linen Service (n.d.).)