Letters Sent to Leonard J. Emmerglick, July 20, 1935

0 0 P Y July 20, 1935. C & C 1461 Anita Jo Burricelli VS. United States Radium orp. C & C 1484 Harold J. Weber, Admr. ad pros. etc. vs. United States Radium Corp. Leonard J. Emmerglick, Esq. 1172 Raymond Boulevard, Newark, N.J. Dear Ifr. . Emmerglick: In the Burricelli case Mr. Milton M. Unger appears for the plaintiff as attorney of record, while you appear in the Weber case. 1 understand, however, from my telephonic talk with you today that you áre actually in charge of both cases. Therefore I am directing my correspondence to you at this time although I am writing to Mr. Unger that if it is agreeable to him, the future correspondence will be directed to you solely. I am sending him a copy of this letter for his information 8 The summons and complaint in the Weber case was served on July 9th while in the Burricelli case it was served on July 10th. We there- fore have considerable time in which to proceed, although I understand from my talk with you that we may have additional time if desired, the understand- ing being that the case will be put at issue about the time the Fall term opens, if practicable. As soon as I get to it, I shalldraft a demand for particulars, in each case, and send it to you for acknowledgment of service. As you know, Judge Forman has not yet decided the case of La Porte v. U.S. Radium Corp. and of course his decision in that case, I presume, will have a considerable effect on these cases assuming it is adverse to you. It would therfore seem to be unnecessary for us to go ahead with physical exeminations, x-rays, blood tests, etc. in the case of Anita J. Burricelli. May it be understood that in that case we may have these examinations after the decision by Judge Forman if we then desire them? Sincerely yours, EAM: AG E. A. MARKLEY