Case ID: f-supp_26/html/0295-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "COXE, District Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

PIEST v. TIDE WATER OIL CO. et al.
    District Court, S. D. New York.
    Dec. 20, 1938.
    Lewis F. Glaser, of New York City, for plaintiff.
    Charles Pratt Healy, of New York City, for defendants.
   COXE, District Judge.

Rule 34, Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, permits a discovery, on a showitig of good cause, of “designated” documents “which constitute or contain evidence material to any matter involved in the action”. At the present time, the defendants have not even answered, so it cannot be determined whether any of the documents requested will be material to any issue in the case. I do not think, either, that Rule 34 allows any such roving inspection as the notice of motion seeks to obtain.

The morion is ■ denied with permission to renew after issue has been joined.