Union Savings Bank of Patchogue, New York v. Saxon

209 F. Supp. 319, 6 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 526, 1962 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6021
CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia
DecidedOctober 12, 1962
DocketCiv. A. 2455-62
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 209 F. Supp. 319 (Union Savings Bank of Patchogue, New York v. Saxon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Union Savings Bank of Patchogue, New York v. Saxon, 209 F. Supp. 319, 6 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 526, 1962 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6021 (D.D.C. 1962).

Opinion

LEONARD P. WALSH, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on “Defendant’s Motion That His Deposition Not Be Taken or That it be Stayed and the Place of' Taking Changed”, and on the Plaintiffs’ memorandum of points and authorities in opposition thereto.

By the complaint Plaintiffs allege that on information and belief, the Defendant Saxon’s issuance of a branch certificate to the Tinker National Bank of East Setauket was on the basis of ex parte representations by the Tinker National Bank and a “personal relationship” between the President of said Bank and the Defendant Saxon, and in violation of Title 12 U.S.C.A. § 36, and Section 4.5(a) of the Rules and Regulations of the Bureau of Comptroller of the Currency.

Certainly, this Court does not encourage the procedure of taking the oral deposition of the head of an agency of the United States Government, and under normal circumstances would not allow such procedure. The Court recognizes that such an official’s time and the exigencies of his everyday business would be severely impeded if every plaintiff filing a complaint against an *320 agency head, in his official capacity, were allowed to take his oral deposition. Such procedure would be contrary to the public interest, plus the fact that ordinarily the head of an agency has little or no' knowledge of the facts in the case. In the instant ease, however, Plaintiffs allege actions personal to the Defendant and in violation of the United States Code.

Therefore, under the circumstances of this case, and restricted solely to the facts of this case, the Court is of the opinion that justice and reason require that Plaintiff be allowed to take the oral deposition of the Defendant, but such deposition should be limited to the procedural action taken by the Defendant as to the subject matter of this case, and not the workings of his (Saxon’s) mind.

By stipulation between the parties, the place for the taking of such deposition shall be the Defendant’s office in the Treasury Department.

It is therefore this 10th day of October, 1962,

ORDERED, that the Defendant’s “Motion that his Deposition not be Taken or That it be Stayed” be, and the same hereby is, denied.

AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the Defendant Saxon submit to the oral deposition requested herein by Plaintiffs, and said deposition be taken in the Office of the Defendant in the Treasury Department;

AND FURTHER, that the time for taking said deposition shall be within a reasonable time from the entry of this Order, on a date and hour agreeable to all parties.

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

Related

State v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce
333 F. Supp. 3d 282 (S.D. Illinois, 2018)
Contractors' State License Bd. v. Superior Court
California Court of Appeal, 2018
Contractors' State License Bd. v. Superior Court of Contra Costa Cnty.
232 Cal. Rptr. 3d 558 (California Court of Appeals, 5th District, 2018)
Alberto v. Toyota Motor Corp.
796 N.W.2d 490 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 2010)
Green v. Baca
226 F.R.D. 624 (C.D. California, 2005)
Nagle v. Superior Court
28 Cal. App. 4th 1465 (California Court of Appeal, 1994)
Monti v. State
563 A.2d 629 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1989)
Fitzpatrick v. Secretary of State
440 N.W.2d 45 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1989)
United States v. Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corp.
123 F.R.D. 3 (W.D. New York, 1988)
Zenith Radio Corp. v. United States
1 Ct. Int'l Trade 59 (Court of International Trade, 1980)
State Board of Pharmacy v. Superior Court
78 Cal. App. 3d 641 (California Court of Appeal, 1978)
United States v. Northside Realty Associates, Inc.
324 F. Supp. 287 (N.D. Georgia, 1971)
D. C. Federation of Civic Associations, Inc. v. Volpe
316 F. Supp. 754 (District of Columbia, 1970)
Carl Zeiss Stiftung v. V. E. B. Carl Zeiss, Jena
40 F.R.D. 318 (District of Columbia, 1966)
Virgo Corp. v. Paiewonsky
5 V.I. 328 (Virgin Islands, 1966)
Bank of Dearborn v. Saxon
244 F. Supp. 394 (E.D. Michigan, 1965)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
209 F. Supp. 319, 6 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 526, 1962 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6021, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/union-savings-bank-of-patchogue-new-york-v-saxon-dcd-1962.