Roth v. Paramount Pictures Distributing Corp.

8 F.R.D. 31, 1948 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3194
CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
DecidedMarch 16, 1948
DocketCivil Action No. 3052
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 8 F.R.D. 31 (Roth v. Paramount Pictures Distributing Corp.) 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
Roth v. Paramount Pictures Distributing Corp., 8 F.R.D. 31, 1948 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3194 (W.D. Pa. 1948).

Opinion

McVICAR, District Judge.

This action is now before the Court on defendants’ motion, wherein they pray this Court to order:

(a) That the facts asserted in the answers and counterclaims of each of the defendants shall be taken to be established against plaintiff Bart Dattola for the purpose of this -action.

(b) That Bart Dattola shall not be allowed to support his claims or to oppose defendants defenses and counterclaims.

(c) That the complaint of Bart Dattola shall be dismissed with prejudice, and costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees shall be allowed to defendants and imposed on Bart Dattolla.

(d) That Bart Dattola shall be arrested and punished for contempt in such manner as the Court may direct.

(e) That pending a hearing and determination of this matter the Court shall order the United States Marshal to forthwith seize and impound, either by sealing or otherwise, the entire contents of the metal filing cabinet in the office of Bart Dattola in the New Dattola Theatre at New Kensington, Pennsylvania, and also all books or records of account contained in the wall locker in said Dattola’s office.

In support of the motion, defendants averred that on April 2, 1945, 4 F.R.D. 302, this Court made an order requiring plaintiff, Bart Dattola, to produce and permit each defendant to inspect, copy, or photograph certain books, etc., covering the period from January 1, 1937, to December 31, 1943, and enjoined the altering or destroying of said books, etc. That on December 5, 1946, Dattola made an affidavit that he had never kept or maintained a cash book, day book, etc. That on January 3, 1947, this Court made an order supplementing its-order of April 2, 1945, which required Dat-tola to produce and permit defendants to inspect certain specified books, etc. That Dattola destroyed or permitted the destruction of all daily records of admissions for the period prior to January 1, 1944. That on February 3, 1947, this Court made another order requiring Dattola to produce and permit each defendant to inspect, copy or photograph documents, books, etc., from January 1, 1944, to the date of the order. That while certain inspections were made, defendants’ agents discovered certain cash books during a period which Dattola had sworn he had never kept. That defendants’ agents, in the course of the inspection,, found certain cash books, etc., which were kept in a filing cabinet although Dattola had stated that such records had never existed.

Defendants, by virtue of the orders of this Court have examined Bart Dattola’s. books and papers, so that they are in a position to proceed with this action on the merits, both as to the claims of Dattola and the [32]*32counterclaims of the defendants against him.

I am not convinced that Dattola wilfully violated the Court’s orders. Dattola, the plaintiff and the defendants each should have their day in Court so that the merits of their respective claims may be determined.

The motion should be dismissed.

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

Related

Ladner v. Litespeed Manufacturing Co.
537 F. Supp. 2d 1206 (N.D. Alabama, 2008)
Cote v. Rockingham County
D. New Hampshire, 1995
Puritan Insurance v. Superior Court
171 Cal. App. 3d 877 (California Court of Appeal, 1985)
Herold v. Computer Components International, Inc.
252 So. 2d 576 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1971)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
8 F.R.D. 31, 1948 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roth-v-paramount-pictures-distributing-corp-pawd-1948.