Document: 363 U.S. 641 80 S.Ct. 1300 4 L.Ed.2d 1462 Hon. Julius H. MINER and Edwin A. Robson, etc., Petitioners,v.H. Leslie ATLASS. No. 156. Argued March 3, 1960. Decided June 20, Mr. Harold Liebenson, Chicago, Ill., for petitioners. Edward B. Hayes, respondent. Justice HARLAN delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Certiorari was granted in this case, 361 807, 66, 41 57, to review decision Court Appeals holding that a District sitting admiralty lacked power order taking oral depositions purpose discovery only, Rule 32 Admiralty Rules Northern Illinois, purporting authorize such depositions,1 invalid want authority promulgate it. 2 The issue arose following manner: respondent filed petition seeking exoneration from or limitation liability death by drowning two seamen employed on yacht owned him. representatives deceased seamen, having appeared as claimants, applied an granting leave take several named persons, including respondent, only. Respondent opposed motion ground court had no any case not meeting conditions R.S. §§ 863—865, de bene esse statute.2 After argument, petitioner Miner, D.J., claimants' motion, pursuant local 32. then sought writ mandamus prohibition requiring vacation Court, prohibiting Judge other district judge whom might be assigned, further proceeding under A rule show cause issued and, after hearing, application extraordinary relief, whose availability particular circumstances involved is challenged before us, granted. 7 Cir., 265 F.2d 312. For reasons presently stated, we have concluded Appeals' conclusion correct, affirm its judgment. 3 Counsel representing petitioners here, undertake support discovery-deposition grounds that: (1) has inherent power, dependent statute rule, discovery; (2) 32C Court's General Rules, 28 U.S.C.A., impliedly empowers depositions; (3) valid exercise regulate practice, conferred 44 Rules. We consider each contention turn. reliance asserted based almost exclusively Third Circuit Dowling v. Isthmian S.S. Corp., 184 758. In exhaustive discussion, Fee, court, expressed view traditionally flexible adaptable practice party submit pretrial examination. Whether intended embrace examinations solely purposes entirely clear. Compare Standard Steamship Co. United States, D.C., 126 F.Supp. 583, with Darling's Estate Atlantic Contracting 150 578, 579; 1950 Annual Survey American Law 523. None historical data adduced seems go beyond area testimony use at trial. states more than history discloses overt rejection taken purposes. page 771, note 36. There affirmative indication if thought exist, 1940 edition Benedict unequivocally asserts '(a)n deposition may only securing evidence; it discovery.' Benedict, (Knauth ed.), 34. This statement leading work field hardly bespeaks existence traditional find none. Cf. Cary Curtis, How. 236, 245, 11 L.Ed. 576. 5 Neither can warrant entry character below. authorized Civil does own force provide sought, since those rules are expressly declared inapplicable proceedings admiralty. 81(a)(1). Certain were adopted part 1939 amendments, 307 653. Thus, 33 through 37 made 31, 32, 32A, 32B, 32C, respectively.3 However, remainder Part V, dealing 'Depositions Discovery,' 26, basic (see 1, ante), adopted. cannot course regard significant omission inadvertent, cf. 76 A.B.A.Ann.Rep. 565—566; rather, goes far establish lack provision 6 contend, some courts agreed, inferred counterpart 37, entitled, 'Refusal make discovery: consequences.' That details procedures which followed 'a deponent refuses answer question propounded upon examination * *.' It been held inclusion must expression assumption existed admiralty, reason '(i)t inconceivable Supreme means elaborate detailed terms would given suitor method enforcing right did exist.' Brown D.C.E.D.Pa., 79 701, 702. accord Bunge Corp. Ourania Gournaris, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 1949 A.M.C. 744; Galperin D.C.E.D.N.Y., A.M.C.1907; Ballantrae, D.C.N.J., 1999. dilemma thus suggested—either 26 inadvertently omitted Rules4 should refers included—is seeming real. reference 'discovery' title well simply modes carried into see ante, think so taken. As 'oral examination,' agreement explanation offered Rifkind Mulligan 87 79, 81, comprehends forms recognized primarily 2, ante).5 By construction, both actions Court—the adoption 26—are harmonious effect. 8 Petitioners' third that, although purposes, present acted ante) authority, See Ludena Santa Luisa, 95 790; Application Pellegrino & Son, F.R.D. 209; Republic France Belships Co., Ltd., 91 912; Prudential Curtis Bay Towing D.C.Md., 20 356. 44, entitled 'Right trial practice,' provides: 9 'In suits all cases provided these statute, Courts their manner they deem most expedient due administration justice, same inconsistent rules.' (Emphasis added.) 10 assume, without deciding, proviso apart, grant contained sufficiently broad unqualified, light liberality flexibility 'practice' Galveston Dry Dock Const. Dredging 40 442. feel constrained hold consistent therefore respect falls within proviso.6 noted, determination but relating advertent declination opportunity institute procedure 26(a) throughout be, 565—566,7 one failure belief could over entirety 26. Enabling Act then, § 913, now, U.S.C. 2073, U.S.C.A. supersede statutes, limitations overridden 26(d) extent restrictive. Nevertheless seem clear now concerned promulgated 6, ante. But whatever reason, action 12 true adopt implies wish impose Courts, necessarily bespeak intention foreclose exercising 'local option' 44. do deny logic contention; neither whenever deal part, all, subject, practices left unprovided dealt Unlike many state comprehensive codes regulating every detail slow interstices subject appropriate regulation. example, fixing time doing certain acts essence orderly procedure. So long set unreasonable, less important what limit there whereby timetable known profession. prescribe motions rehearing bar limit. Papanikolaou Freighters, 232 663, 665. Similarly, whether sued sum, who contests his portion required suffer judgment prior contested portion, compelling why prevent supplying rule. supra. 13 here our nature history. Discovery once weighty complex matter either examples just discussed others come mind. Its introduction federal major achievements described 'one innovations' rules. Hickman Taylor, 329 495, 500, 67 385, 388, 451. Moreover, choice govern various specific problems arising system instances initial system. obvious bare between negative narrow question, even necessary problem answer, need one. Rather, which, though concededly 'procedural,' great importance litigants 'substantive' doctrine, arises jurisdiction where nationwide uniformity always highly esteemed. 14 peculiarly calls exacting observance statutory surrounding rule-making powers 331, 331 (advisory function Judicial Conference), 2073 (prior report proposed Congress), designed insure procedural innovations shall introduced mature consideration informed relevant quarters opportunities integrated treatment affords. Having already themselves, hesitate construe permitting change effectuated especially when never reported Congress8 2073. 15 strongly reinforced post-1939 1948 revision Code 1939. 1951 joint committee associations 181; Maritime Assn., Doc. 348 (Sept. 1951). No 1953 recommended applicable minor modifications; permitted witnesses parties. 369 (Apr. 1953). Again enact amendments explained away suggesting widespread similar us9 render amendment unnecessary, rules, virtue inability whole. Mercado 24. 16 added way desirability undesirability cases. Those advise powers—more particularly Conference States (28 331) newly created Advisory Committee hoped will give early attention—are wholly free approach provisions considerations them, experience gained Local challenged. Nor anything said bodies recommending discovery-depositions making. All decide existing posture affairs encompassed 17 Affirmed. 18 BRENNAN, DOUGLAS STEWART join, dissenting. 19 today strikes down counterparts country. fact, statistics recent fiscal year indicate half litigation conducted like nullified.1 I agree lightly brings about turning back clock Nation. first second contentions petitioners, put reversed, taken;2 dissent third, truly substantial, sanctioned rulemaking power. doubt rule; rule's validity. power; me fails completely demonstrate very substantial business 21 'Rule Right practice. 22 23 established powers, separate form different general courts, 'rules conduct business.' 2071, 2071.3 Whatever precise content read separately effective specified otherwise implicit law. meaning face value. 665; Construction 442, 444.4 British Transport Commission 354 129, 138, 77 1103, 1107, 1234. 83 quite concept, appears comparable interpretation. Russell Cunningham, 233 806, 811; Moore, Federal Practice (2ed 83.03. Hvass, 355 570, 575, 78 501, 504, 496. 24 Clearly providing Sibbach Wilson 312 61 422, 85 479. venture this. Of nothing confining exercises trivial. Hence prima facie (as apparently admits), examine invalidated conflict statute. precludes rule;5 holds precluded gingerly draws circumstance amendatory 1939—General 31 32C—incorporated Rules' devices others. On basis adopting Rules—such 26.6 certainly inference follow. promulgation were, mandatory Courts. Courts; follow Courts' lessened. decided enough being Rules; word inhibits going desire. test 'not inconsistent' general. indicating constitute ones permissible.7 Howe contrary conclusion? 25 appears, void implications safeguards current Act. 2073; also Conference). answers contention. Perhaps Rules—rules statutes ordain require them rules; reflects difference Congress' basis, Rule-making, ends prescribes whole country.8 If Illinois attempted country, observations point. Furthermore, protective provisions—the advice (which incidentally)—was effect adopted.9 And additions 1939, sweeping liberalizations finds preclusive supplementary none safeguards—with advisory submission Congress. Yet requirement procedures; them. unquestionably here.10 token, stood side-by-side Congress; fact made. 'basic' procedure, still validly promulgated, break faith later declare mirage. 27 position deposition-discovery 1948, received Rule-making To sure, before, toto). contain statutes,11 reserved post-1948 era validity ripe Rule; while best approached experimentation. Certainly evidence 'unnecessary,' intimates. valid, scope authority. prerequisite unnecessary. Obviously intrinsic differences Rule.12 stops up plentiful sources reform source developing body draw, 26's formulators drew (2d 26.01. provision, Rule, occur suitable court. State arguably value here. opposition making argue unique fit badly. Report Standing Law, Bar Association, Ann.Rep.A.B.A. (1951), pp. 182—183. appear difficult evaluate correctness attitude, investigate civil applying parts untouched become insulated fruitful source, perhaps choked off—the loath draw produce result. 29 apprised how principle preclusion establishes be. pure speculation attempt enumerate struck because move do. result cloud uncertain proportions 30 greatly influenced piecemeal effort, act admissibility evidence. 24, holds, gainsaying correctness.13 Thus themselves it, point, against affects can. considerable regard,14 careful promulgated. unimpaired, confined discovery.15 However well-motivated many, conclude desirable premises, certainly, better provide. lends itself uniform so, strike territorial limitations, sort solution interim. 83; seek escape plain consequences believe exercised better. When superseded; enough. nullifies casts creates unfortunate hiatus development postponing collection practical until produced. legal forward, accordingly affirming issuance writs. provides 'taking parties governed Procedure except use' limited forth permits 'the person, party, purposes,' 26(d). amended, Stat. 182, appliable preceding 1781, 1781. Section 863 witness pending action, only: '* lives greater distance place hundred miles, bound voyage sea, out tried, miles trial, he ancient infirm. *' admissible event deponent's death, absence presence 100 travel age, ill health, imprisonment. 865. 33, 'Interrogatories parties'; 34 (Admiralty 32) relates 'Discovery production documents things inspection, copying, photographing'; 35 32A) authorizes 'Physical mental persons'; 36 32B) governs 'Admission facts genuineness documents'; 32C) deals pages 643—644, 1302—1303, well-settled using codification 80. Apart utilized Dedimus Potestatum, Deposition Perpetuam Rei Memoriae, Letters Rogatory. procedures, 866—870, 875, repealed Code, years discussion Admiralty, 397—401. Rifkind's judges. Kelleher 88 139; D.C.Del., supra; Gulf Oil Alcoa 1965. inconsistency 46, orally open parties.' stage lawsuit. much discovery. evidently product use. admitted bar. Association Report, referring 'Chief Stone,' error. Chief Charles Evans Hughes. predecessor adopted, not, reporting See, e.g., Southern New York, 32; Districts Florida, 24; California, 13, West's Ann.Code. D.C.E.D.Va., ending 30, 1959, private brought districts (including nonparty witnesses) York 32); Florida (joint 24); California 13); Western Washington 25A), besides Illinois. referred to, responsible 1,743 3,424 50.9%. addition, catchall situations for. districts, interpreted allowing depositions. Eastern Virginia, 580. other, response suggestion chief 356, 357 (decided May 9, 1957); Maryland, 1958. These accounted 170 5% during question. category indicates 55.9% prosecuted available. broadened adverse North Carolina, 30; Louisiana, Ohio, 38. 116 filed, 3.4%. obviated ruling implicitly available, 1999; available Director Administrative Office Fiscal Year Table C.3. Government listed such. first, depositions, second, 32C. Before predecessors courts. 918, somewhat differently worded predecessor, 1793, 335. derived Process Acts. First 1844, subsidiary fairly 46 xiii. last-cited Learned Hand went say 918 legislate, delegated Congress, circumscribed gives laws, declares. Within limits disregard freely Congress itself; law observe statute.' F.2d, 444. rightly rejects itself, operates implication hence makes fall violative purport invest Act, regulates contains act. Fisk Tooth Crown cases, Ex parte Fisk, 113 713, 724, 1117; Hanks Dental Ass'n International 194 303, 700, 48 989, implied act, testimony, books infra), amounted exclusion examination, otherwise. 861 12, infra); inferences acts, honored authorities extensively discovery, books, extend statutes. jurisprudence accordingly, proof Accordingly barrier involved. course, reception evidence, (6th ed. 1940), Code. 62 993. 917. 862 913. avoids 5, then-existing toto resulted subject. 565—566. committee, copy new Not serve supplement conference 1/2, 316 716. 758, 773. noted vested 83, empowering contemplated Rule. generally (but 2074, 2074) given, laid table original 19, 1934, c. 651, 1064, form, 2072, Contrast old lower 917, together empower pre-existing (although 917's repealer modern Acts, statutes; point contemplate supercession foreign indispensable exercise. (like one) law, deemed requires, July 11, 1958, 72 1955. 5A (7th 1959), p. 833. efficacy covered 331; interesting treats was. narrowly construed promulgated; promulgating plenitude argument requires Old provisions, 989; offer guides primary decisions, rendered 1885 1904, statutorily provided. 861. supra, 308, Modern testimonial matters. former affect latter. 912, found comes Judiciary 1789, 88, actions, equity alike; 1874, restricted 861, proofs 862. may, 1874 revision. derives August 23, 1842, 188, 518, 1842 explicit revision, 862, statutes) superseded individual remained till 1921, 46. (See Hughes, 1920), 511 et seq., 1844 immediately 1921 revision.) revision; 254 U.S., 692—693, touched extensive supplements alteration Accordingly, exception cross-reference treated carrying gloss have, interpretation inhibiting rather strained notes responsibilities area, developed, 359 314, 323—324, 857, 845; recently formed. impeachment contradiction testified, depend fulfillment 26(d)(3), items occasions admission

Category: 8