Piest v. Tide Water Oil Co.

26 F. Supp. 295, 1938 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1405
District Court, S.D. New York·Decided December 20, 1938·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

COXE, District Judge.

Rule 34, Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, permits a discovery, on a showitig of good cause, of “designated” documents “which constitute or contain evidence material to any matter involved in the action”. At the present time, the defendants have not even answered, so it cannot be determined whether any of the documents requested will be material to any issue in the case. I do not think, either, that Rule 34 allows any such roving inspection as the notice of motion seeks to obtain.

The morion is ■ denied with permission to renew after issue has been joined.

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

Piest v. Tide Water Oil Co., 26 F. Supp. 295, 1938 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1405 (S.D.N.Y. 1938).

26 F. Supp. 295 (Piest v. Tide Water Oil Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hallman v. Gross
59 A.2d 304 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1948)
Marzo v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc.
7 F.R.D. 378 (E.D. New York, 1945)
Olson Transp. Co. v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co.
7 F.R.D. 134 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1944)
Eastern States Corp. v. Eisler
30 A.2d 867 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1943)
Kenealy v. Texas Co.
29 F. Supp. 502 (S.D. New York, 1939)