Summary
striking language from the district court's order requiring the production of tax returns and relying on precedent in which courts did not authorize discovery of tax returns partly because the information they contained was available elsewhere
Summary of this case from Shelbyville Hosp. Corp. v. MosleyOpinion
No. 11243.
October 20, 1952.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan; Arthur A. Koscinski, Judge.
Alfred A. May and John Sklar, Detroit, Mich., for appellants.
Bevan Walter and George Heideman, Detroit, Mich., for appellee.
Before MARTIN, McALLISTER and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
On the hearing of this appeal counsel for appellee was not present and no brief having been filed on behalf of appellee, the appeal was heard upon the record and the brief and oral argument of attorney for the appellants;
And the Court being advised, it is now ordered that the order of June 22, 1950 herein appealed from be modified by the elimination therefrom of the following words in the second literary paragraph thereof:
"copies of all tax returns (including state employment and Federal Income, excess profits, with-holding, social security, payroll, excise and amusement or admission tax), and all related documents, memoranda and supporting data and all other documents, correspondence, papers, and memoranda kept recorded" and the words "all material" in the sentence starting with the words "Including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing."
And as so modified, the order be and is affirmed. Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451; Annotation 8 A.L.R.2d 1134; Garrett v. Fau, D.C., 8 F.R.D. 556; Welty v. Clute, D.C., 2 F.R.D. 429; O'Connell v. Olsen Ugelstadt, D.C., 10 F.R.D. 142.