Saviolis v. National Bank

S.D. New York

Saviolis v. National Bank

25 F. Supp. 966, 1938 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1542

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided November 16, 1938·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

BONDY, District Judge.

The rules do not require that the notice specify the matters as to which the deposition is to be taken. Rule 30(a), 28 U.S. C.A. following section 723c; cf. N.Y. Civil Practice Act, § 290. A limitation of the scope of the examination should be sought pursuant to Rule 30(b) (d).

The fact that the defendants assert that they intend to interpose amended answers constitutes no reason for setting aside the notice given “after an answer has been served.” See Rule 26 (a), 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c.

|The motion is in all respects denied.

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

BONDY, District Judge.

The rules do not require that the notice specify the matters as to which the deposition is to be taken. Rule 30(a), 28 U.S. C.A. following section 723c; cf. N.Y. Civil Practice Act, § 290. A limitation of the scope of the examination should be sought pursuant to Rule 30(b) (d).

The fact that the defendants assert that they intend to interpose amended answers constitutes no reason for setting aside the notice given “after an answer has been served.” See Rule 26 (a), 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c.

|The motion is in all respects denied.

Saviolis v. National Bank, 25 F. Supp. 966, 1938 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1542 (S.D.N.Y. 1938).

Pincite

25 F. Supp. 966 (Saviolis v. National Bank) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related