Walker v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.

2 Citing cases

  1. Cooke v. New Mexico Junior College Bd.

    579 F.2d 568 (10th Cir. 1978)   Cited 5 times
    Finding that the plaintiff's "offer to produce relevant [diary] entries should be amply sufficient to satisfy the defendants in their discovery efforts"

    In addition, Fed. Rules Civ.P. 34(b) requires that the request must "describe each item and category with reasonable particularity." 4 Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 26.56[1] (2d ed. 1976); Walker v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 48 F.R.D. 365 (E.D.Wis. 1970); Camco, Inc. v. Baker Oil Tools, Inc., 45 F.R.D. 384 (S.D.Tex. 1968); and Richland Wholesale Liquors, Inc. v. Joseph E. Seagram Sons, Inc., 40 F.R.D. 480 (D.S.C. 1966). In the instant case Cooke concedes that certain entries in his diary are relevant to his dispute with the College, and he has repeatedly offered to provide the defendants with copies of such entries.

  2. Mallinckrodt Chemical Works v. Goldman, Sachs & Co.

    58 F.R.D. 348 (S.D.N.Y. 1973)   Cited 55 times
    In Mallinckrodt, plaintiffs sued Dun & Bradstreet, among others, for securities fraud on the ground that commercial paper sold to plaintiffs was rated as " prime," and the legitimacy of such a rating was dubious.

    The drafters of the 1970 Amendments specifically revised Rule 34 to eliminate the ‘ good cause’ language. See, e. g., Walker v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 48 F.R.D. 365 (E.D.Wisc.1970); International Commodities Corp. v. International Ore & Fertilizer Corp., 30 F.R.D. 58 (S.D.N.Y.1961); Austin Theatre, Inc. v. Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc., 30 F.R.D. 156 (S.D.N.Y.1958); Service Liquor Distributors, Inc. v. Calvert Distillers Corp., 16 F.R.D. 344 (S.D.N.Y.1954). For an excellent discussion and analysis of this subject see 8 C. Wright & A. Miller, supra, note 13, § 2205.