Legal Opinion

Foundry Equipment Co. v. Carl-Mayer Corp.

District Court, N.D. Ohio

Decided October 10, 1950No. Civ. No. 26952PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

JONES, Chief Judge.

This is a patent infringement action.

Plaintiff objects to defendants’ Interrogatories 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 13?

Interrogatories 7, 9 and 13 request the production of certain documents and letters. • This court has consistently ' held that documents arid letter-s cannot be produced by the procedure provided in Fed. Rules Civ.Proc., rule 33, 28 U.S.C.A. Linko v. Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co., D.C., 9 F.R.D. 615; Britting v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, D.C., 10 F.R.D. 536.

Interrogatory No. 1 requests certain information relating to conception and disclosure of a patent in…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Linko v. Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1949

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Republic of China v. National Union Fire Insurance Co.District Court, D. Maryland · 1956
  2. Lee v. Electric Products Co.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1963

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

Powered by the Exa API