TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Brach v. Macfadden Publications, Inc.

Brach v. Macfadden Publications, Inc., 1 F.R.D. 445 (S.D.N.Y. 1940)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
District Court, S.D. New York · Federal District Courts
Decided
September 16, 1940
Judges
Mandelbaum
Citations
1 F.R.D. 4451940 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1995

Opinion of the Court — Mandelbaum

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

MANDELBAUM, District Judge.

The plaintiff moves for leave to take the depositions of parties and witnesses, an order for the issuance of subpoenas and the production and copying of documents. *446 Rule 26(a), Rule 45, Rule 45(d) and Rule 34, Rules of Civil Procedure for District Courts, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c.

The defendants object to the procedure adopted by the plaintiff. Ordinarily I would be inclined to overlook technical objections to procedure. However, in the instant case, I feel that the points raised by the defendants are well taken. The new federal rules provide a clear and unambiguous method of taking depositions, compelling the attendance of parties and witnesses and the production and copying of documents. The plaintiff contends that by this omnibus motion, he will save the time and the effort of the court. After careful consideration, I think that what the plaintiff is attempting to do would result in confusion rather than assistance.

Issue has been joined in this case and Rule 26(a) explicitly states that a deposition shall be taken without leave. The rule further states that the deposition shall be taken only in accordance with these rules. It seems as if the plaintiff is proceeding in a roundabout way. Judge Hulbert has clearly outlined the procedure to be followed (Lyons v. Bronx Towing Line, Inc., D.C., 1 F.R.D. 52 ; Nekrasoff v. United States Rubber Co., D.C., 27 F.Supp. 953 ), and I agree with him.

Orderly procedure under the rules and the cases forces me to the conclusion that this motion be denied. Proceed accordingly

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1944: 11945: 11951: 119442026peak 1944 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. William A. Meier Glass Co. v. Anchor Hocking Glass Corp.11 F.R.D. 487 (W.D. Pa. 1951)
  2. Marzo v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc.7 F.R.D. 378 (E.D.N.Y. 1945)
  3. Reitmeister v. Reitmeister4 F.R.D. 197 (E.D.N.Y. 1944)

Most recent

  1. William A. Meier Glass Co. v. Anchor Hocking Glass Corp.11 F.R.D. 487 (W.D. Pa. 1951)
  2. Marzo v. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc.7 F.R.D. 378 (E.D.N.Y. 1945)
  3. Reitmeister v. Reitmeister4 F.R.D. 197 (E.D.N.Y. 1944)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Nekrasoff v. U. S. Rubber Co., 27 F. Supp. 953 (S.D.N.Y. 1939) 16
Lyons v. Bronx Towing Line, Inc., 1 F.R.D. 52 (D. N.Y. 1939) 1

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list