Legal Opinion

Rosenblum v. Dingfelder

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided October 30, 1941PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

KNOX, District Judge.

There are many cases under Rule 34, Rules of Civil Procedure 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, to the effect that a party should not be ordered to permit a general inspection of all of his records simply because the moving party cannot specify which documents he needs. The *310information necessary to enable the moving party properly to identify the desired documents may be obtained by deposition under Rule 26, upon oral examination under Rule 30, and upon written interrogatories under Rule 31. I so held in the instant case, reported in 2 F.R.D. 49. See, also, Monarch…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Piorkowski v. Socony Vacuum Oil Co.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1940
  2. Monarch Liquor Corp. v. Schenley Distillers Corp.District Court, N.D. New York · 1941

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Brown v. New York, New Haven & Hartford RailroadDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1955
  2. United States v. American Optical Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1942
  3. Stark v. American Dredging Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1943
  4. Niks v. Marinette Paper Co.District Court, N.D. New York · 1951
  5. Hare v. Southern Pac. Co.District Court, N.D. New York · 1949

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API