Hillside Amusement Co. v. Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc.
District Court, S.D. New York
1Opinion of the Court
RIFKIND, District Judge.
Motion by plaintiff for an order under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 34, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, requiring defendant, Paramount Pictures, Inc., to produce and permit the inspection and copying of designated papers. The defendant’s opposition to the application as a whole is founded on three grounds: (1) That the designated papers deal with matters which are remote in time from the matters in issue; (2) that the papers deal with events which occurred at places remote geographically from the scene of action relevant to the issues; (3) that the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Thomas French & Sons, Ltd. v. Carleton Venetian Blind Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 1939
- Baush MacHine Tool Co. v. Aluminum Co. of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1934
- United States v. American Optical Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1942
- Lever Bros. Co. v. Proctor & Gamble Mfg. Co.District Court, D. Maryland · 1941
- States v. Schine Chain Theatres, Inc.District Court, W.D. New York · 1942
3Cited by11 opinions
- Caldwell-Clements, Inc. v. McGraw-Hill Pub. Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1952
- Erone Corp. v. Skouras Theatres Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1958
- Carter-Wallace, Inc. v. Hartz Mountain Industries, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1981
- United States v. National Steel Corp.District Court, S.D. Texas · 1960
- Pappas v. Loew's Inc.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1953
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.