From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Piest v. Tide Water Oil Co.

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Dec 20, 1938
26 F. Supp. 295 (S.D.N.Y. 1938)

Opinion

December 20, 1938.

Lewis F. Glaser, of New York City, for plaintiff.

Charles Pratt Healy, of New York City, for defendants.


Rule 34, Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, permits a discovery, on a showing of good cause, of "designated" documents "which constitute or contain evidence material to any matter involved in the action". At the present time, the defendants have not even answered, so it cannot be determined whether any of the documents requested will be material to any issue in the case. I do not think, either, that Rule 34 allows any such roving inspection as the notice of motion seeks to obtain.

The motion is denied with permission to renew after issue has been joined.


Summaries of

Piest v. Tide Water Oil Co.

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Dec 20, 1938
26 F. Supp. 295 (S.D.N.Y. 1938)
Case details for

Piest v. Tide Water Oil Co.

Case Details

Full title:PIEST v. TIDE WATER OIL CO. et al

Court:United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: Dec 20, 1938

Citations

26 F. Supp. 295 (S.D.N.Y. 1938)

Citing Cases

Western Contr. Corp. v. State Hwy. Dept

1. The motion to dismiss under Section 12 (b) (6) of the Civil Practice Act as amended (Ga. L. 1966, pp. 609,…

United States Trust Co. of New York v. Sears

Since, therefore, all statements of fact made on behalf of either the plaintiffs or the defendant stand…