Barrezueta v. Sword S. S. Line, Inc.

S.D. New York

Barrezueta v. Sword S. S. Line, Inc.

27 F. Supp. 935, 1939 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2760

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York

DecidedApril 5, 1939

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 27 F. Supp. 935 (Barrezueta v. Sword S. S. Line, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barrezueta v. Sword S. S. Line, Inc., 27 F. Supp. 935, 1939 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2760 (S.D.N.Y. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

HULBERT, District Judge.

This is a motion by the plaintiff, after issue joined, to have a limited examination of the defendant under Rule 26, Rules of Civil Procedure for District Courts, 28 U. S.C.A. following section 723c.

The Rules of Federal Practice have the same effect as a statute and are as binding upon the court as upon counsel.

Failure to proceed in accordance with the Rules does not make for simplicity or uniformity in procedure. Plaintiff may, upon service of a simple notice, require his adversary to appear for examination upon any material issue -not privileged. There is nothing in the Rule which proscribes a designation of specific issues if the party seeking the examination so chooses to limit himself. Neither is there any provision in the Rule which authorizes the party seeking the examination to have it limited by the court in anticipation of a motion by his opponent under Rule 30(b). This Rule inures to the benefit of the latter only.

The applicant also seeks a discovery and inspection under Rule 34, and the requested relief is so interwoven and so indefinitely phrased that its purpose is confusing.

The motion will be denied, without prejudice, in order that action may be taken in accordance with the Rules as adopted by the United States Supreme Court and not as counsel has done in apparent disregard thereof.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

HULBERT, District Judge.

This is a motion by the plaintiff, after issue joined, to have a limited examination of the defendant under Rule 26, Rules of Civil Procedure for District Courts, 28 U. S.C.A. following section 723c.

The Rules of Federal Practice have the same effect as a statute and are as binding upon the court as upon counsel.

Failure to proceed in accordance with the Rules does not make for simplicity or uniformity in procedure. Plaintiff may, upon service of a simple notice, require his adversary to appear for examination upon any material issue -not privileged. There is nothing in the Rule which proscribes a designation of specific issues if the party seeking the examination so chooses to limit himself. Neither is there any provision in the Rule which authorizes the party seeking the examination to have it limited by the court in anticipation of a motion by his opponent under Rule 30(b). This Rule inures to the benefit of the latter only.

The applicant also seeks a discovery and inspection under Rule 34, and the requested relief is so interwoven and so indefinitely phrased that its purpose is confusing.

The motion will be denied, without prejudice, in order that action may be taken in accordance with the Rules as adopted by the United States Supreme Court and not as counsel has done in apparent disregard thereof.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 F. Supp. 935, 1939 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2760, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barrezueta-v-sword-s-s-line-inc-nysd-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack