Rosseau v. Langley

8 Citing cases

  1. Boeing Airplane Company v. Coggeshall

    280 F.2d 654 (D.C. Cir. 1960)   Cited 76 times
    In Boeing Airplane Co. v. Coggeshall, 108 U.S.App.D.C. 106, 280 F.2d 654 (1960), this court held that investigatory or other factual reports in the files of the Renegotiation Board were subject to discovery, but that policy recommendations were privileged.

    These rules must be read in pari materia. See, e.g., Demeulenaere v. Rockwell Manufacturing Co., D.C.S.D.N.Y. 1952, 13 F.R.D. 134; Rosseau v. Langley, D.C.S.D.N.Y. 1945, 7 F.R.D. 170. Rules 45(d) and 26(b) establish the outer limits of enforcement. Rule 45(d) permits a subpoena to order any person to produce papers "which constitute or contain evidence relating to any of the matters within the scope of the examination permitted by Rule 26(b), but in that event the subpoena will be subject to the provisions of subdivision (b) of Rule 30 and subdivision (b) of this Rule 45."

  2. In re Vioxx Products Liability Litigation

    235 F.R.D. 334 (E.D. La. 2006)   Cited 16 times
    Analyzing Supreme Court cases to explain why presumption was limited to the two situations there identified

    In interpreting the federal rules of civil procedure, the rules must be considered in relation to one another. Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 505, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947); Tiedman v. American Pigment Corp., 253 F.2d 803, 808 (4th Cir.1958); Canister Co. v. Leahy, 182 F.2d 510, 514 (3d Cir.1950); Rosseau v. Langley, 7 F.R.D. 170, 172 (S.D.N.Y.1945). Moreover, the rules of civil procedure and those governing the enforcement of subpoenas should be read in pari materia.

  3. Enger-Kress Co. v. Amity Leather Products Co.

    18 F.R.D. 347 (E.D. Wis. 1955)   Cited 13 times

    Even though the Court has no jurisdiction to consider causes of action which occurred prior to the issuance of the patent, either with regard to patent infringement or unfair competition, this fact does not drop a legal curtain over events occurring prior to the issuance of a patent. The Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., relating to discovery procedure are to be construed in pari materia . Rosseau v. Langley, D.C.N.Y.1945, 7 F.R.D. 170. It is a matter of general knowledge that the discovery procedure provided in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are extremely broad and are to be liberally applied.

  4. Republic of Italy v. De Angelis

    14 F.R.D. 519 (S.D.N.Y. 1953)   Cited 1 times

    Rule 34 has been construed to the effect that it is not necessary to establish the admissibility of the documents but that it is sufficient if the documents concern matters generally bearing on the issue and that there is reasonable probability that the documents contain material evidence. Rosseau v. Langley, D.C., 7 F.R.D. 170 and cases cited. See also Bank Line v. U.S. 2 Cir., 163 F.2d 133 at page 137 wherein the Court said of the construction to be given rule 34:

  5. Lundberg v. Welles

    11 F.R.D. 136 (S.D.N.Y. 1951)   Cited 15 times
    Rejecting Widenski

    On a motion for discovery and inspection, the items sought must be designated and such a blanket request is not permitted. United States v. American Optical Co., D.C., 2 F.R.D. 534; Forstmann Woolen Co. v. Manufacturers Retail Men's Stores, D.C., 6 F.R.D. 224; Rosseau v. Langley, D.C., 7 F.R.D. 170. Furthermore, it is likely that a portion of this correspondence is within the ‘ work product’ concept, as indicating the attorneys' mental impressions and beliefs.

  6. Callaway v. Rolland Laboratories, Inc.

    9 F.R.D. 88 (W.D. Mo. 1949)   Cited 2 times

    The statute devolves upon the defendant the duty to keep such records, and, in construing Rule 34, the courts have said that such rule should be liberally construed to effectuate its purposes. Bordonaro Bros. Theatres v. Loew's, Inc., D.C., 7 F.R.D. 481; Rosseau v. Langley, D.C., 7 F.R.D. 170; Midland Steel Products Co. v. Clark Equipment Co., D.C., 7 F.R.D. 132.          2.

  7. Caplin v. United Feature Syndicate, Inc.

    8 F.R.D. 424 (S.D.N.Y. 1948)   Cited 5 times

    These allegations make admissible evidence of such facts to establish knowledge and intent, irrespective of statutory limitations of the time within which actions may be brought. See Rosseau v. Langley, D.C., 7 F.R.D. 170, 172; Laird v. United Shipyards, D.C., 1 F.R.D. 772, 773; Connecticut Importing Co. v. Continental Distilling Corp., D.C., 1 F.R.D. 190, 191.           There is no reason why the inspection and copying of interoffice memoranda should not be held to be subject to the rules for the production and inspection of records.

  8. Wild v. Payson

    7 F.R.D. 495 (S.D.N.Y. 1946)   Cited 26 times
    Holding that ‘ privileged’ in the federal rules should be interpreted as it is in the law of evidence

              The question of whether a party can be compelled to produce or reveal statements, documents or reports made to him or his attorney by third persons in preparation for trial has been before the courts on numerous occasions and has resulted in a sharp conflict of decisions. Bough v. Lee, D.C., 28 F.Supp. 673; Kulich v. Murray, D.C., 28 F.Supp. 675; Price v. Levitt, D.C., 29 F.Supp. 164; and Rosseau v. Langley, D.C., 7 F.R.D. 170 are representative of the cases permitting the production of some such statements, while French v. Zalstem-Zalessky, D.C., 1 F.R.D. 508; Stark v. American Dredging Co., D.C., 3 F.R.D. 300; Conneway v. City of New York, D.C., 32 F.Supp. 54; and McCarthy v. Palmer, D.C., 29 F.Supp. 585 are representative of the view that such statements and documents used in the preparation for trial are not subject to compulsory production or disclosure. There are only a few appellate court cases on this question.