TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Trebby v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

James TREBBY and Yvonne Trebby, Husband and Wife v. The GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, Defendant The GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, Third-Party v. T.N.T. SERVICE, a/k/a T.N.T. Tire Service, and Leo Nowik, Third-Party

Trebby v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 129 F.R.D. 468 (S.D.N.Y. 1990)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
District Court, S.D. New York · Federal District Courts
Decided
February 5, 1990
Docket
No. 88 Civ. 1817 (RPP)
Judges
Patterson
Citations
129 F.R.D. 46816 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 9711990 WL 116131990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1188

Opinion of the Court — Patterson

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

DECISION ROBERT P. PATTERSON, Jr., District Judge.

Defendant, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (Goodyear), has moved to quash *469 plaintiffs’ notices of deposition of Gerhard Gerbeth and Robert Hutchinson, both former employees of Goodyear, to preserve their testimony for use at trial. Plaintiffs’ notices of deposition request the right to videotape said depositions.

With respect to the prospective witness, Robert Hutchinson, the motion to quash is granted. Mr. Hutchinson is hospitalized with a serious heart condition. Plaintiffs may serve a new notice only after Mr. Hutchinson has been released from the hospital and his attending physician has indicated that the taking of his testimony will not be detrimental to his health.

With respect to the prospective witness, Gerhard Gerbeth, he is no longer an employee of Goodyear and does not reside within the scope of this Court’s power of subpoena. It is agreed that he is in good health and Goodyear has agreed to make him available at trial. Plaintiff responds that a trial date may be relatively remote in time. Mr. Gerbeth has been deposed many times by plaintiffs’ Kansas counsel. His deposition is not required for discovery purposes, but to preserve his testimony. Accordingly, the Court grants Goodyear’s motion to quash the notice of deposition on the condition that Goodyear files with the Court a statement sworn to by Mr. Gerbeth to the effect that he will appear as a potential witness at the trial of this case if called by plaintiff. Such statement shall be filed with the Court within ten days of the date of entry of this decision.

SO ORDERED.

How later courts describe this case

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

1991: 12003: 119912026peak 1991 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Amarin Plastics, Inc. v. Maryland Cup Corporation D/B/A Sweetheart Products Group946 F.2d 147 (1st Cir. 1991)
  2. Ahrens v. Ford Motor Company340 F.3d 1142 (10th Cir. 2003)

Most recent

  1. Ahrens v. Ford Motor Company340 F.3d 1142 (10th Cir. 2003)
  2. Amarin Plastics, Inc. v. Maryland Cup Corporation D/B/A Sweetheart Products Group946 F.2d 147 (1st Cir. 1991)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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