C.P.C. Partnership Bardot Plastics, Inc. v. P.T.R., Inc.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
GILES, District Judge.
Before me is defendant Nosco Plastic’s motion to reconsider the court’s previous ruling of October 13, 1982. That order denied Nosco’s motion to require plaintiffs to file the transcripts of oral depositions taken by plaintiffs in this proceeding along with the exhibits marked for identification therein.
Rule 30(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, inter alia, that depositions shall be promptly filed with the court, that the party taking the deposition shall give prompt notice of its filing to all other parties, and that upon request of a party,…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Schroer v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. Colorado · 2008
- Carter v. Utah Power & Light Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1990
- Alston v. Blue Ridge Transfer Co.Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 1992
- Kinan v. City of BrocktonDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1986
- Carter v. Utah Power & Light Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1990
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.