Rose v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Corp.

S.D. New York

Rose v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Corp.

26 F. Supp. 601, 40 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 288, 1938 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1338

DecidedDecember 8, 1938

StatusPublished

This text of 26 F. Supp. 601 (Rose v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Corp.) 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

Rose v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Corp., 26 F. Supp. 601, 40 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 288, 1938 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1338 (S.D.N.Y. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

MANDELEAUM, District Judge.

After carefully reading the pleadings, as well as the authorities cited by both sides, I am constrained to sustain the objections to all of plaintiff’s interrogatories. It is well settled under Equity Rule 58, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723, that either party to the action may, through interrogatories, question the opposite party as to ultimate facts that are material and necessary to support the alleged cause of action (or defense). It is equally well settled that such interrogatories will not be permitted, if their purpose is to pry into the adversary’s case, to obtain names and testimony of witnesses, to inquire into matters between the adversary and third parties unrelated to the case, and to anticipate a defense. All these exceptions I find to exist in plaintiff’s interrogatories.

The plaintiff also seeks the production, under Equity Rule 58, of certain enumerated documents alleged to be in the possession of the defendants. Again I am constrained to deny the plaintiff’s application. Equity Rule 58 requires a party to produce only those documents which contain the facts material to support the alleged cause of action (or defense). The court advances the same reasons for the denial of this relief as hereinabove stated, in connection with the plaintiff’s interrogatories.

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

MANDELEAUM, District Judge.

After carefully reading the pleadings, as well as the authorities cited by both sides, I am constrained to sustain the objections to all of plaintiff’s interrogatories. It is well settled under Equity Rule 58, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723, that either party to the action may, through interrogatories, question the opposite party as to ultimate facts that are material and necessary to support the alleged cause of action (or defense). It is equally well settled that such interrogatories will not be permitted, if their purpose is to pry into the adversary’s case, to obtain names and testimony of witnesses, to inquire into matters between the adversary and third parties unrelated to the case, and to anticipate a defense. All these exceptions I find to exist in plaintiff’s interrogatories.

The plaintiff also seeks the production, under Equity Rule 58, of certain enumerated documents alleged to be in the possession of the defendants. Again I am constrained to deny the plaintiff’s application. Equity Rule 58 requires a party to produce only those documents which contain the facts material to support the alleged cause of action (or defense). The court advances the same reasons for the denial of this relief as hereinabove stated, in connection with the plaintiff’s interrogatories.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 F. Supp. 601, 40 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 288, 1938 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1338, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rose-v-metro-goldwyn-mayer-corp-nysd-1938.