Dunn v. Pennsylvania R.
District Court, N.D. Ohio
1Opinion of the Court
JONES, Chief Judge.
This is an action for damages for personal injury.
Defendant on December 9, 1949, served plaintiff with 22 interrogatories which to date have not been answered. Defendant, therefore, moves to dismiss this action pursaunt to Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. rule 37(d), 28 U.S.C.A.
This rule speaks in terms of willful failure to answer, and it is not apparent that there has been a willful failure in this action. It was removed from a Common Pleas Court and possible ignorance of the Federal Rules on the part of the plaintiff’s attorneys seems to be the more logical explanation of the failure…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Dann v. Compagnie Generale Trans-Atlantique Ltd.District Court, E.D. New York · 1939
3Cited by1 opinion
- Quillie B. Woodham v. The American Cystoscope Company of Pelham, N. Y., and the Xyz CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1964