Legal Opinion
In re Master Key
District Court, D. Connecticut
Decided June 22, 1971No. MDL Docket No. 45PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RULING ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION UNDER RULE 37 FOR SANCTIONS AND TO COMPEL FURTHER ANSWERS BY DEFENDANTS EMHART CORPORATION AND EATON, YALE & TOWNE, INC. TO PLAINTIFFS’ INTERROGATORIES — FIRST SET
BLUMENFELD, District Judge.
I
The interrogatory answers which are under attack are those filed by defendants Emhart Corporation and Eaton, Yale & Towne, Inc. For the most part, they are the same. In response to Interrogatories Nos. 2, 3, 9, 27, 30, 31 and 46, Eaton has not given a specific answer, but has invoked Rule 33(c) Fed.R.Civ.P. “Option to Produce Business Records.” 1 Emhart has done the same in…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Hickman v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- United States v. Procter & Gamble Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1958
- United States v. CorrellSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Interstate Commerce Commission v. J-T Transport Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1961
- Central Hanover B. & T. Co. v. Commissioner of Int. Rev.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1947
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- United Nuclear Corp. v. General Atomic Co.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1980
- Compagnie Francaise d'Assurance Pour le Commerce Exterieur v. Phillips Petroleum Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1984
- Daiflon, Inc. v. Allied Chemical CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1976
- Flour Mills of America, Inc. v. PaceDistrict Court, E.D. Oklahoma · 1977
- Meunier v. OgurekCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1987
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.