Huber Baking Co. v. Frank C. Sparks Co.
Superior Court of Delaware
1Opinion of the CourtLayton, J.
This is a reargument of one phase of the case of Huber Baking Company v. Sparks Company, 6 Terry 525, 76 A. 2d 124. Counsel for Huber no longer challenges the conclusion there reached that, in a proper case, an examiner may move for the exclusion of witnesses from the deposition room under Rule 30 (b). However, he now contends that, in the cited opinion, I failed to consider whether of not the motion for the protective order was seasonably made. Concededly, I did not touch directly on this phase of the matter and, because it was raised on the briefs and argued to me, .counsel is entitled to a…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- United States v. United Shoe Machinery Co.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1912
- Mastellone v. Argo Oil Corp.Superior Court of Delaware · 1950
- Huber Baking Co. v. Frank C. Sparks Co.Superior Court of Delaware · 1950
3Cited by5 opinions
- BCI Communication Systems, Inc. v. Bell Atlanticom Systems, Inc.District Court, N.D. Alabama · 1986
- Dunlap v. Reading Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1962
- Layton v. LeeSuperior Court of Delaware · 1963
- Distefano v. LambornSuperior Court of Delaware · 1951
- Mooney v. The Boeing CompanySuperior Court of Delaware · 2020