Legal Opinion

Buryan v. Max Factor & Co.

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided January 24, 1967No. 66 Civ. 1014PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MANSFIELD, District Judge.

The question presented by defendant’s motion pursuant to Rule 30(b), F.R.Civ.P. is whether the plaintiff, a New York resident who brought this diversity suit for alleged breach of an employment contract in this district, may force the defendant corporation’s five top executives to come from California, where they perform their duties at its principal executive offices in California, to New York for the purpose of having their depositions taken here by plaintiff’s counsel pursuant to a Rule 26, F.R.Civ.P., notice. The circumstances call for granting defendant’s motion…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Colonial Capital Co. v. General Motors Corp.District Court, D. Connecticut · 1961
  2. Kurt M. Jachmann Co. v. Hartley, Cooper & Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1954

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Sugarhill Records Ltd. v. Motown Record Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1985
  2. D'AGOSTINO v. Johnson & JohnsonNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1990
  3. Intercontinental Fibres, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1972
  4. Powell v. International Foodservice Systems, Inc.District Court, D. Puerto Rico · 1971
  5. Insulation Unlimited, Inc. v. Two J's Properties, Ltd.Miami County Court of Common Pleas · 1997

2 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