Opinion
Proceeding on motion for production of documents, records and files. The District Court, Dimock, J., held that where proceeding was pending before administrative authorities, court in which habeas corpus proceeding was pending had no authority to require production of documents, records and files for use in administrative proceeding in absence of proof that officer conducting proceeding had acted improperly with respect to any application by petitioners for discovery.
Motion denied.
Hong & Gim, New York City, Benny Gim, New York City, of counsel, for relators.
J. Edward Lumbard, U.S. Atty. for Southern Dist. of New York New York City, Harold R. Tyler, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., New York City, Lester Friedman, Attorney, Immigration and Naturalization Service, New York City, of counsel, for respondent.
DIMOCK, District Judge.
This is a motion by relators pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.— presumably Rule 34— for production of documents, records and files. While no final disposition has been made of the writ of habeas corpus herein, and while, therefore, that writ is still pending before this court, the hearings before the Special Inquiry Officer have been reopened for a limited purpose. See U.S. ex rel. Lee Kum Hoy v. Shaughnessy, 123 F.Supp. 674. It appears that these reopened proceedings are now pending before the administrative authorities. The material requested by relators is for use in the administrative proceedings. In the absence of proof that the Special Inquiry Officer has acted improperly with respect to any application by relators for discovery this court is powerless. The motion is denied.