Bruen v. Huff

8 F.R.D. 322, 79 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 351, 1948 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3287
CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
DecidedAugust 20, 1948
DocketCiv. No. 7169
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 8 F.R.D. 322 (Bruen v. Huff) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bruen v. Huff, 8 F.R.D. 322, 79 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 351, 1948 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3287 (W.D. Pa. 1948).

Opinion

GIBSON, District Judge.

fl] The plaintiffs have objected to Interrogatories 3(a) and 3(b) propounded by defendants. The objection is based upon the demand that plaintiffs furnish copies of certain licenses mentioned in the interrogatories.

The objection must be sustained. The interrogatories are issued under authority of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 33, 28 U.S.C.A., which does not authorize the demand made. If the defendants are entitled to the copies demanded they must show “good cause therefor” and the court will thereupon order the plaintiffs “to produce and permit the inspection and copying or photographing * * * of any designated documents, papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects, or tangible things, not privileged, which constitute or contain evidence * * * ” as required by Rule 34.

On Motion to Join an Additional Party.

The defendants have moved the court to join Diebold, Inc. as a plaintiff in the action. While that corporation may not be a necessary party to the action, it does appear that it has a conditional exclusive license agreement under the patent in suit. In the interest of the possible reduction of actions based upon the patent, this court will make the order prayed.

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

Related

Pappas v. Loew's Inc.
13 F.R.D. 471 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 1953)
Alltmont v. United States
177 F.2d 971 (Third Circuit, 1950)
Alfred Pearson & Co. v. Hayes
9 F.R.D. 210 (S.D. New York, 1949)
Walsh v. Pullman Co.
9 F.R.D. 107 (D. Massachusetts, 1949)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
8 F.R.D. 322, 79 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 351, 1948 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3287, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bruen-v-huff-pawd-1948.