Smith Frozen Foods of Idaho, Inc. v. Merchants Refrigerating Co.

S.D. New York

Smith Frozen Foods of Idaho, Inc. v. Merchants Refrigerating Co.

14 F.R.D. 33, 1953 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4573

DecidedJanuary 7, 1953

StatusPublished

This text of 14 F.R.D. 33 (Smith Frozen Foods of Idaho, Inc. v. Merchants Refrigerating Co.) 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

Smith Frozen Foods of Idaho, Inc. v. Merchants Refrigerating Co., 14 F.R.D. 33, 1953 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4573 (S.D.N.Y. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

WEINFELD, District Judge.

Upon a review of the pleadings and contentions of the respective parties, I am persuaded that the issues of custom, practice, and the oral agreement, as alleged in the complaint, require that the deposition be taken by oral examination and that written interrogatories would be quite inadequate.¹

Accordingly, the motion to vacate the notice for the deposition of the plaintiff by oral examination is denied, but the order to be entered may contain an appropriate provision that, at plaintiffs option, the examination may be conducted at Pendleton, Oregon, or Lewiston, Idaho, provided it defrays the expenses of defendant’s attorneys (they having waived counsel fees), as outlined in Morrison Export Co. v. Goldstone, D.C., 12 F.R.D. 258; Worth v. Trans World Films, D.C., 11 F.R.D. 197.

Settle order on notice.

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

WEINFELD, District Judge.

Upon a review of the pleadings and contentions of the respective parties, I am persuaded that the issues of custom, practice, and the oral agreement, as alleged in the complaint, require that the deposition be taken by oral examination and that written interrogatories would be quite inadequate.¹

Accordingly, the motion to vacate the notice for the deposition of the plaintiff by oral examination is denied, but the order to be entered may contain an appropriate provision that, at plaintiffs option, the examination may be conducted at Pendleton, Oregon, or Lewiston, Idaho, provided it defrays the expenses of defendant’s attorneys (they having waived counsel fees), as outlined in Morrison Export Co. v. Goldstone, D.C., 12 F.R.D. 258; Worth v. Trans World Films, D.C., 11 F.R.D. 197.

Settle order on notice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 F.R.D. 33, 1953 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4573, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-frozen-foods-of-idaho-inc-v-merchants-refrigerating-co-nysd-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack