Legal Opinion

Mattingly v. Boston Woven Hose & Rubber Co.

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided January 4, 1952PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

EDWARD WEINFELD, District Judge.

The third-party defendant moves to vacate two notices to take depositions served by defendant. The first notice seeks to examine the third-party defendant by its “President, Vice-President and any other officers, agents or employees (including, but not limited to Glen Leeper and Peter Duscha) having knowledge of the facts.” Upon the argument it was conceded that the named individuals need not be produced for examination.

Rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 28 U.S.C.A. provides that the notice shall “state a * * * general description sufficient to…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Cohen v. Pennsylvania R. Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1939
  2. Aston v. American Export Lines, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1951
  3. Moore v. Lehigh Valley R.District Court, S.D. New York · 1946

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Krauss v. Erie R. Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1954
  2. Fay v. United StatesDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1958
  3. McCall v. Overseas Tankship Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1954
  4. Proseus v. Anchor Line, Ltd.District Court, S.D. New York · 1960
  5. Rifkin v. United States LinesDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1959

5 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