ORDER OVERRULING DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ INTERROGATORIES AND PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT’S INTERROGATORIES
This is аn action in negligence wherein the complaint states that defendant negligently caused injury to plaintiffs by driving while intoxicated and thereby causing an accident. Plaintiffs pray for both actual and punitive damages.
Defendant objects to interrogatories numbered 4, 5, 6 and 7 propounded by plaintiff Robert Hughes and interrogatories numbered 6, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 propounded by plaintiff Margaret Hughes.
Plaintiff Robert Hughes’ interrogatories 4 and 5 and plaintiff Margaret Hughes’ interrogatories 15 and 16 are identical. They inquire whether defendant has liability insurance applicable to the personal injuries here alleged to have been sustained, whether the insurance company is defending the action, the name and address of the insurance company, the policy limits of the apрlicable policy, whether the insurer is raising any coverage defense against defendant and whether any insurance carrier is interested in the “defense or outcome” of this suit and, if so, its name and address. The cases are admittedly not in agreement on this question. But the better view is that the information is discoverable. Cook v. Welty (D.D.C.)
“[T]o the extent that the examination develops useful information it func*55 tions successfully as an instrument of discovery, even if it produces no testimony directly admissible.” Lewis v. United States Air Lines Transport Corp. (D.Conn.)27 F.Supp. 946 .
Defendant cites Langlois v. Allen (D. Conn.)
Defendant next objects to plaintiff Robert Hughes’ interrogatory 7 and Margaret Hughes’ interrogatory 18, both of which in substance ask for “all assets and liabilities, jointly and severally * * * and gross earnings for last five (5) years.” Defendant objects that the question is premature. He asserts that “more than a simple allegation and claim for punitive damages should be necessary to allow plaintiffs to discover information about defendant’s finances and ‘how much he is to be рunished.’ ” The law, however, is well settled and contrary to that position. Information regarding damages is as discoverable as is that which pertains to liability. 4 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 26.18, p. 1229 (1968 ed.); Sinclair Refining Co. v. Jenkins Petroleum Process Co.,
Defendant objects to Robert Hughes’ interrogatory number 6 and Margaret Hughes’ interrogatory number 17, both of which seek to obtain the names, addresses, telephone numbers and job titles of any agent of defendant who has had personal contact with plaintiffs to obtain the facts of the occurrence and the claims alleged in plaintiffs’ рetition. Defendant contends the information obtained thereby would be “work product.” But inquiry into existence of an oral or written statement of plaintiffs to which end this interrogatory is phrased, is not objected to. And it is the better view that a party’s own statement in thе hands of the opposing party can be discovered and is not privileged. Butler v. United States (W.D.Mo.)
Defendant also objects to Margaret Hughes’ interrogatory number 6, inquiring whether or not the operator of his vehicle was suffering from any physical or other disability affecting the operation of a motor vehicle. The objection is grounded on the contention that the inquiry calls for an opinion “based on information not available to a party.” The information asked for is properly
Interrogatory 14 of plaintiff Margaret Hughes calls for the name and address of any “party” who secured photographs of the situs of the accident and for the attachment of copies thereof to the аnswers to interrogatories. Defendant objects again on the ground of work product. The weight of modern authority is that photographs are discoverable. Helverson v. J. J. Newberry Co. (W.D. Mo.)
Plaintiffs objеct to defendant’s interrogatories 7 and 8, inquiring into prior injuries, as unreasonably burdensome. The information called for, however, is entirely relevant, and cannot be burdensome where it calls for essentially the information which should be in plaintiffs’ possession tо support the allegations of the complaint. In order, however, to insure that the interrogatory will not impose an unreasonable burden upon plaintiffs, the scope of the interrogatory will be limited to require a statement of all substantial prior injuries which plaintiffs have received and which are within the scope of the interrogatory. Further, in view of the fact that plaintiffs presently reside in Illinois, they are granted leave until March 10, 1969, to answer this interrogatory.
Plaintiffs also challenge defendant’s interrogatory numbеr 16, which inquires whether any payments were received, in respect to plaintiffs’ injuries, or benefits paid them under a health, accident, hospital, “medical pay”, disability or other insurance contract for any claim as a result of the accident described in this petition. Plaintiffs object that “[t]his information is entirely irrelevant and immaterial and does not lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” The test, as stated above, however, is neither admissibility nor the actual leading to the discovery of admissiblе evidence, but reasonable calculation of the discovery to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Collateral payments may offer some information on the type, location and severity of injury or disability, as well as lead tо the discovery of other relevant evidence. Allowing discovery of this kind of information is clearly within the scope of the general rule expressed in United States v. Purdome, supra, that liberality is proper in the interpretation of the rules to facilitate full discovery.
Plaintiffs Robert Hughes’ objections to interrogatories 30 and 31 and Margaret Hughes’ objections to 31 and 32 are not well taken. The interrogatories will be treated as motions for production under Rule 34, and produc
Relevаnt hospital records appear in any personal injury case to be subject to production for “good cause shown”. Smith v. Maryland Casualty Co. (E.D.La.)
Defendant further objects to interrogatory number 1 of the supplemental interrogatories filed by plaintiffs. That interrogatory asks the defendant to state in detail the manner in which he claims the casualty occurred, and to specify the sрeed, direction, and location of the vehicles and the point at which they came to rest. The objection is that the interrogatory is not clearly drawn to indicate “specifically what they want to know and what they don’t want to know.” It is clear, howеver, that this is an inquiry into the contentions of the defendant upon these prospective factual issues. As Professor Moore notes in 4 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 33.17, pp. 2354-2355, contentions of the parties should be discoverable. This court has so hеld in Brecklein v. Bookwalter (W.D.Mo.)
For the foregoing reasons, it is
Ordered that defendant’s objections to Plaintiff Robert Hughes’ interrogatories numbered 4, 5 and 6 and Plaintiff Margaret Hughes’ interrogatories 6, 15, 16, and 17 be, and the same are hereby, overruled. It is further
Ordered that defendant’s objection to Plaintiff Robert Hughes’ interrogatory number 7 and Plaintiff Margaret Hughes’ interrogatory number 18 be, and it is hereby, sustained with regard to “gross earnings for the past five years” and otherwise overruled. It is further
Ordered that defendant’s objection to Plaintiff Margaret Hughes’ interrogatory number 14, be, and thе same is hereby, sustained only with regard to the requirement of attaching copies to the answers to interrogatories and otherwise overruled. It is further
Ordered that plaintiffs’ objection to defendant’s interrogatories 7 and 8 be, and the same is hereby, overrulеd and plaintiffs are ordered to file a statement of all substantial prior injuries on or before March 10,1969. It is further
Ordered that plaintiffs’ objections to defendant’s interrogatories 30 and 31 addressed to Robert Hughes and 31 and 32 addressed to Margaret Hughes be,
Ordered that defendant’s objection to plaintiffs’ supplemental interrogatory number 1 be, and it is hereby, overruled. It is further
Ordered that the interrogatories here ordered to be answered and documents ordered to be produced be answered and produced on or before March 10, 1969.