20 F.R.D. 416 | D. Mass. | 1957
The plaintiff in this libel action has been taking the deposition of the editorial employee of the defendant who wrote the editorial which allegedly libeled the plaintiff. During the course of the deposition the witness stated that he received, on the day before he wrote the editorial, a memorandum which was one of the producing causes of the editorial. The witness refused to divulge the name of the writer of this memorandum or to produce the document itself. The witness refused to testify concerning the memo or to produce it on the
Having determined that the questions as to the memorandum are not privileged, it is now necessary to rule on the relevancy of the questions. The identity of the writer of the memo might not be admissible, but I rule that it is relevant in that it would have some bearing and may lead to some admissible evidence on the issue of malice.
Under Rule 34 the plaintiff seeks to have the document itself produced. The document comes within Rule 34 for several reasons. The short answer to the question is that the document is not available to the plaintiff from any other source.
The motion is allowed as to both aspects. The witness is to appear at an agreed time to testify concerning the document and to produce the document.