Hartford Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. E. F. Drew & Co.
District Court, D. Delaware
1Opinion of the Court
LEAHY, Chief Judge.
Defendant has moved under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 34, 28 U.S.C., for the production of certain writings in the possession of plaintiffs. Plaintiffs argue that the moving papers show lack of good cause. Defendant says it can not answer paragraphs S and 6 of the complaint unless it has these documents.
It seems to me defendant may answer paragraphs 5 and 6 by pleading lack of information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of those paragraphs. This would be followed, in the answer, by an orthodox denial. After the pleadings are in, the issues…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Piest v. Tide Water Oil Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1938
- Sutherland Paper Co. v. Grant Paper Box Co.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1948
- Woods v. KornfeldDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1950
3Cited by5 opinions
- Black v. Sheraton Corp. of AmericaDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1969
- Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance v. ShieldsDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1955
- Kabbaby v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1975
- Guilford National Bank v. Southern Railway Co.District Court, M.D. North Carolina · 1960
- Kabbaby v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1975