Opinion
Action wherein a deposition by oral examination was sought by motion. The District Court, Edward Weinfeld, J., held that in view of pleadings and contentions, issues of custom, practice, and oral agreement, as alleged in complaint, required deposition to be taken by oral examination and that written interrogatories would be inadequate.
Order in accordance with opinion.
Max Tirschwell, New York City, for plaintiff.
Debevoise, Plimpton & McLean, New York City, Daniel W. West, New York City, of counsel, for defendant.
WEINFELD, District Judge.
Upon a review of the pleadings and contentions of the respective parties, I am persuaded that the issues of custom, practice, and the oral agreement, as alleged in the complaint, require that the deposition be taken by oral examination and that written interrogatories would be quite inadequate.
See V. O. Machinoimport v. Clark Equipment Co., D.C., 11 F.R.D. 55; Worth v. Trans World Films, D.C., 11 F.R.D. 197.
Accordingly, the motion to vacate the notice for the deposition of the plaintiff by oral examination is denied, but the order to be entered may contain an appropriate provision that, at plaintiff's option, the examination may be conducted at Pendleton, Oregon, or Lewiston, Idaho, provided it defrays the expenses of defendant's attorneys (they having waived counsel fees), as outlined in Morrison Export Co. v. Goldstone, D.C., 12 F.R.D. 258; Worth v. Trans World Films, D.C., 11 F.R.D. 197.
Settle order on notice.