Casino Foods Corporation v. Kraftco Corporation

Ninth Circuit

Casino Foods Corporation v. Kraftco Corporation

546 F.2d 301, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 6241

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedNovember 15, 1976

Docket75-1936

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 546 F.2d 301 (Casino Foods Corporation v. Kraftco Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Casino Foods Corporation v. Kraftco Corporation, 546 F.2d 301, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 6241 (9th Cir. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

Before CHAMBERS and CHOY, Circuit Judges, and EAST, * District Judge.

We find appellant’s argument against this court’s affirmance of the district court’s granting of summary judgment for Kraftco without merit. No genuine issue of material fact existed to support appellant’s allegation of conspiracy, and summary judgment therefore was proper.

Similarly, appellant’s contentions regarding certain subpoenas and subpoenas duces tecum served by it upon agents of the FBI are of no avail. It seems that appellant desired confirmation by the FBI that New-ell Howlett, of Howlett Olson Egg Co., one of the appellees, had complained about appellant to the FBI, which then investigated appellant. Howlett refused to answer any questions about that complaint during the taking of his pre-trial deposition. Appellant failed to request the court to compel Howlett to answer under F.R.Civ.P. 37. Appellant also did not attempt to obtain the information by utilizing the regulatory procedures implementing the Freedom of Information Act. See 5 U.S.C. § 552; 28 C.F.R. §§ 16.1-.10 (1975). Finally, the district court found that “even if Howlett [had] filed a complaint with the FBI concerning Casino, there is no indication that Kraftco is somehow involved thereby in a conspiracy.” Appellant therefore was not prejudiced by the quashing of the subpoenas.

Appellant initially maintained in its brief that the district court had failed to make a final disposition on the government’s motion to quash the subpoenas (thus rendering the matter nonappealable), but now instead charges this court in its petition for rehearing with failure to consider the district court’s granting of the government’s motion to quash. Despite this inconsistency, the record indicates that the district court did in fact order the subpoenas quashed, and we find no abuse of discretion in that order. See Baker v. F & F Investment, 470 F.2d 778 (2d Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 966, 93 S.Ct. 2147, 36 L.Ed.2d 686 (1973).

Appellant’s petition for rehearing accordingly is denied.

CHAMBERS, Circuit Judge, recused himself from acting on the petition for rehearing.

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

ORDER ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

Before CHAMBERS and CHOY, Circuit Judges, and EAST, * District Judge.

We find appellant’s argument against this court’s affirmance of the district court’s granting of summary judgment for Kraftco without merit. No genuine issue of material fact existed to support appellant’s allegation of conspiracy, and summary judgment therefore was proper.

Similarly, appellant’s contentions regarding certain subpoenas and subpoenas duces tecum served by it upon agents of the FBI are of no avail. It seems that appellant desired confirmation by the FBI that New-ell Howlett, of Howlett Olson Egg Co., one of the appellees, had complained about appellant to the FBI, which then investigated appellant. Howlett refused to answer any questions about that complaint during the taking of his pre-trial deposition. Appellant failed to request the court to compel Howlett to answer under F.R.Civ.P. 37. Appellant also did not attempt to obtain the information by utilizing the regulatory procedures implementing the Freedom of Information Act. See 5 U.S.C. § 552; 28 C.F.R. §§ 16.1-.10 (1975). Finally, the district court found that “even if Howlett [had] filed a complaint with the FBI concerning Casino, there is no indication that Kraftco is somehow involved thereby in a conspiracy.” Appellant therefore was not prejudiced by the quashing of the subpoenas.

Appellant initially maintained in its brief that the district court had failed to make a final disposition on the government’s motion to quash the subpoenas (thus rendering the matter nonappealable), but now instead charges this court in its petition for rehearing with failure to consider the district court’s granting of the government’s motion to quash. Despite this inconsistency, the record indicates that the district court did in fact order the subpoenas quashed, and we find no abuse of discretion in that order. See Baker v. F & F Investment, 470 F.2d 778 (2d Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 966, 93 S.Ct. 2147, 36 L.Ed.2d 686 (1973).

Appellant’s petition for rehearing accordingly is denied.

CHAMBERS, Circuit Judge, recused himself from acting on the petition for rehearing.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

546 F.2d 301, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 6241, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/casino-foods-corporation-v-kraftco-corporation-ca9-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack