Opinion
Proceeding upon defendant's motions for more definite statement and for extension of time within which to answer complaint. The District Court, McCarthy, J., held that where information of the character sought by defendant was not properly to be obtained by requiring an enlargement of the initial pleading in the case, the motion for more definite statement would be denied, but where receipt of answers to interrogatories propounded to plaintiff might help to achieve brevity in the answer, motion for extension of time would be allowed.
Motion for more definite statement denied; motion for extension of time allowed.
Arlen G. Swiger, Leonard A. Watson, Joseph R. Kelley, Edwin J. Harragan, New York City, James M. Malloy, Morton Myerson, Ralph W. Sullivan, Robert L. Grant, Malloy, Sullivan & Myerson, Boston, Mass., of counsel, for plaintiff.
Choate, Hall & Stewart, Boston, Mass., Conrad W. Oberdorfer, Boston, Mass., for defendant.
McCARTHY, District Judge.
This cause came on to be heard on the defendant's motions for more definite statement and for extension of time within which to answer the complaint.
The motion for a more definite statement respecting certain allegations contained in the complaint is denied. Information of the character sought by the defendant should not be obtained by requiring an enlargement of the initial pleading in the case.
Good cause has been shown, however, for extending the time within which defendant must answer. Receipt of the answers to interrogatories which have been propounded to the plaintiff may help to achieve brevity in the answer— a result much to be desired in civil anti-trust actions. Allowance of the motion, moreover, cannot prejudice the plaintiff.
Defendant's motion for extension of time allowed. The defendant will file an answer within thirty days of receipt of plaintiff's answers to interrogatories propounded heretofore.