Boysell Co. v. Hale
District Court, E.D. Tennessee
1Opinion of the Court
DARR, District Judge.
This is a patent infringement suit. The plaintiff has filed a number of interrogatories under Rule 33 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c. The plaintiff • claims that this will materially reduce the number of issues triable in the case. The defendant has filed a number of objections to answering any of the interrogatories.
I. The defendant’s • first objection is that all the interrogatories constitute a “fishing expedition.”. A general objection of this kind is not good and this ground of the motion is overruled. Laverett v. Continential…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Laverett v. Continental Briar Pipe Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 1938
- Beacon Folding MacH. Co. v. Rotary MacH. Co.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1927
- Paraffine Cos., Inc. v. WielandDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1927
3Cited by10 opinions
- Bowles v. Safeway Stores, Inc.District Court, W.D. Missouri · 1945
- Stover v. Central Broadcasting CompanySupreme Court of Iowa · 1956
- Byers Theaters, Inc. v. MurphyDistrict Court, D. West Virginia · 1940
- Chandler v. Cutler-Hammer, Inc.District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1940
- American S.S. Co. v. Buckeye S.S. Co.District Court, W.D. New York · 1941
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.