Legal Opinion

Herman Schwabe, Inc. v. United Shoe Machinery Corp.

District Court, E.D. New York

Decided July 25, 1960No. Civ. No. 17660PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BRUCHHAUSEN, Chief Judge.

The plaintiff moves for enlargement of time until November 1, 1960, to comply with the provision of calendar rule 1(b) ; to complete discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A.; and an order directing the defendant to produce for plaintiff’s inspection documents numbered 1 to 10 in the notice of motion.

The production of all of the said documents other than those referred to as items 7 and 8 has previously been denied by Judge Zavatt in Schwabe, Inc., v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., D.C., 23 F.R.D. 251, and by Judge Bryan in *229Buscher v. United Shoe…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Hickman v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
  2. Herman Schwabe, Inc. v. United Shoe Machinery Corp.District Court, E.D. New York · 1959
  3. Buscher v. United Shoe Machinery Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1958

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe MacHinery Corp.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1962
  2. Duplan Corp. v. Deering Milliken, Inc.District Court, D. South Carolina · 1973

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API