Legal Opinion
United States ex rel. Edelstein v. Brussell Sewing Mach. Co.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided April 13, 1943PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HULBERT, District Judge.
This motion is to vacate a notice requiring the corporate defendant, by Jacob Brussell, its President, to appear at the office of the plaintiff’s attorney and be examined orally.
Objection is made that the notice does not state the matters upon which the examination is sought. That is not necessary. Rule 26(b) 1 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, provides: “ * * * the deponent may be examined regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action.”
*88Plaintiff is an informer, suing in…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- United States Ex Rel. Marcus v. HessSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
- Nekrasoff v. U. S. Rubber Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1939
- Finkelstein v. BoylanDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1940
- Krier v. MuschelDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1939
- Folley Amusement Holding Corp. v. Randforce Amusement Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1940
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Marzo v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 1945
- Evans v. SchleinDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1946
- Tahoe Insurance v. Morrison-Knudsen Co.District Court, D. Idaho · 1979
- De Wagenknecht v. StinnesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1957
- Reitmeister v. ReitmeisterDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1944
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.