From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Baker v. Midtown Bus Terminal of New York, Inc.

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Jun 5, 1942
3 F.R.D. 70 (S.D.N.Y. 1942)

Opinion

         Action by Henry A. Baker and twenty-five others against Midtown Bus Terminal of New York, Inc., defendant and third party plaintiff, against Bus Depot Holding Corporation, third party defendant. On motion of third party defendant and defendant to stay plaintiff from taking oral testimony of defendant pursuant to a notice to take deposition and the production of certain books and records.

         Order in accordance with opinion.

          William McKelvey, of New York City, for plaintiff.

          Abraham J. Halprin, of New York City, for Bus Depot Holding Corporation.

          Lexow & Jenkins, of Suffern, N.Y., for Midtown Bus Terminal of New York, Inc.


          MANDELBAUM, District Judge.

          The third party defendant and the defendant move to stay plaintiff from taking the oral testimony of the defendant, pursuant to a notice to take deposition. The motion also requests that the production of certain books and records in conjunction with the examination, pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum, be stayed.

         With respect to the examination before trial, it appears to be the desire of the moving parties to examine the plaintiff prior to submitting the defendant to an examination. The plaintiff had served his notice first and is entitled to an examination first. While this rule is not inflexible, nothing has been presented which impels the court to vary from the accepted practice.

          With respect to the production of books and records in conjunction with the examination, the defendant contends that plaintiff has not complied with Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, in failing to ask for the production of the records by motion. Nevertheless, the defendant has expressed a willingness to have the court pass upon what books and records should be produced in order to save time. In view of this, the court will treat this phase of the motion as if made pursuant to Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

          The court will grant items 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7, and will deny the remaining items set forth in the notice for the production of the books and records.

         Settle order on notice.


Summaries of

Baker v. Midtown Bus Terminal of New York, Inc.

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Jun 5, 1942
3 F.R.D. 70 (S.D.N.Y. 1942)
Case details for

Baker v. Midtown Bus Terminal of New York, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:BAKER et al. v. MIDTOWN BUS TERMINAL OF NEW YORK, Inc. (BUS DEPOT HOLDING…

Court:United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: Jun 5, 1942

Citations

3 F.R.D. 70 (S.D.N.Y. 1942)

Citing Cases

Mutual Finance Corp. v. Sobol

         To the same effect are five other decisions in this court. These are Shemokin Woolen Mills, Inc. v.…

Edwin H. Morris & Co., Inc. v. Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc.

The joint notice of defendants was served first and this gives priority in the absence of special…