Burris v. American Chicle Co.

E.D. New York

Burris v. American Chicle Co.

1 F.R.D. 9, 1939 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1619

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. New York

DecidedOctober 20, 1939

DocketNo. 434

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 1 F.R.D. 9 (Burris v. American Chicle Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Burris v. American Chicle Co., 1 F.R.D. 9, 1939 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1619 (E.D.N.Y. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

GALSTON, District Judge.

This is a motion to vacate plaintiff’s notice of examination before trial on the ground that the notice is indefinite in respect as to the person to be examined by the plaintiff; also on the ground as to items 3 to 11 inclusive, the matters are within the knowledge of the plaintiff himself; and that item 26 is too general.

The notice, of course, should state the name of the person to be examined, or if such name is not available, then to designate the person by sufficient description. The notice does comply by referring to the “superintendent or caretaker in charge of the premises” of the de[10]*10fendant, but is deficient in respect to other persons sought to be examined. If other witnesses are required then their names should be given.

Some of the matters embraced in items 3 to 11 inclusive are clearly within the knowledge of the plaintiff; and the objections therefore to items 3, 4, 5, 7, 10 and 11 are sustained.

Item 26 is too general and the objection is sustained.

The motion is granted to the extent indicated.

Settle order on notice.

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