Summary
In Stewart-Warner Corp. v. Staley, D.C., 2 F.R.D. 199, and in Sheldon v. Great Lakes Transit Corp., D.C., 2 F.R.D. 272, the court denied a request to file interrogatories prior to the reply of defendant's counterclaim in the one case and prior to the defendant's answer in the other.
Summary of this case from Adelman v. Nordberg Mfg. Co.Opinion
In Equity. Action in equity by Stewart-Warner Corporation against Austin L. Staley, trustee for Universal Lubricating Systems, Inc., debtor in reorganization. On plaintiff's motion for bill of particulars and plaintiff's objections to defendant's interrogatories.
Motion for bill of particulars denied and objections to interrogatories sustained, without prejudice.
See, also, 42 F.Supp. 140.
Warren C. Horton and Williams, Bradbury & Hinkle, all of Chicago, Ill., and
David Bollinger and Smith, Buchanan & Ingersoll, all of Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiff.
Leonard L. Kalish, of Philadelphia, Pa., Elder W. Marshall and Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay, all of Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendant.
SCHOONMAKER, District Judge.
The plaintiff filed a motion for a bill of particulars as to the matters alleged in the counterclaim. To this the defendant responded by filing a bill of particulars on January 12, 1941, and a further amended counterclaim on April 1, 1941. In these we believe defendant has alleged its counterclaim with sufficient particularity. This motion will therefore be denied.
The interrogatories to which plaintiff objected we find are thirty-three in number, and relate largely to matters that could more properly and conveniently be inquired into by oral examination. We expressed our view on this matter in Graver Tank & Mfg. Corporation v. James B. Berry Sons Co., Inc., D.C., 1 F.R.D. 163, 165. See, also, Byers Theaters, Inc., v. Murphy, D.C., 1 F.R.D. 286, 288; New England Terminal Co. v. Graver Tank & Mfg. Corp., D.C.R.I. 1940, 1 F.R.D. 411; Coca Cola. Co. v. Dixi-Cola Laboratories, Inc., D.C., 30 F.Supp. 275.
In addition, the interrogatories that relate to the counterclaim are at least premature, and should not be answered until an issue is raised by the pleadings on the subject matter of the counterclaim.
We therefore will sustain the objections to the interrogatories at this time without prejudice to the right of the defendant to renew them, in event an oral examination of plaintiff's officers does not further the required information.