against using other discovery methods to identify witnesses and depose them. In re Markle, 174 W.Va. at 557, 328 S.E.2d at 163 (1984). Rule 26(b)(1) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure is identical to its federal counterpart. Pursuant to Rule 26(b)(1), W.V.R.C.P., a party is entitled to discover “the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter.” As Professor Moore recognizes in his treatise, “Rule [26(b)(1) ] has ... been applied to permit inquiry of the names and addresses of persons from whom the interrogated party has obtained statements or otherwise interviewed in the course of trial preparation.” 4 Moore’s Federal Practice P 26.57[1], at 26-163 (1980 ed.). See also Ballard v. Allegheny Airlines, Inc., 54 F.R.D. 67, 69 (E.D.Pa.1972) (<HOLDING>); Kelleher v. Omark Indus., Inc., 20
holding that a discovery exception to a statute of limitation applies only to the discovery of facts not discovery of the law holding information sought by interrogatories asking whether any witnesses gave defendant a statement to be precisely the type of discovery sanctioned by rule 26bls provision for discovery of the identity and location of person having knowledge of any discoverable matter recognizing applicability of discovery rule holding that plaintiffs right to argue a need for discovery prior to the entry of summary judgment was preserved since plaintiff moved to vacate summary judgment ten days later and included precisely the discovery needed and not generalized statements of necessary discovery holding that rejection of the appellants rule 56f request for additional discovery was proper where the information as to which he sought discovery was immaterial to the question of whether he is liable