Court Opinion

ID: 9472411
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 03:59:36.269758+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:42:55.412171
License: Public Domain

WIDENER, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent.
I am of opinion the case should be remanded for further proceedings.
I think the district court abused its discretion when it did not require the complete disclosure of the details concerning the settlement between Mrs. Burke and the bank as well as the complete details concerning the check.
While it may be true, for the reasons expressed by the majority, that on the facts as disclosed by the record as now made up, summary judgment was appropriate, what the record would disclose if the complete details surrounding the check and the settlement ' between Mrs. Greason and the bank were disclosed may well be an entirely different matter. Accordingly, I also am of opinion the district court erred in granting summary judgment.
FRCP 26(b)(1) provides that discovery may be had regarding any matter which is “relevant to the subject matter” or “relating to the existence ... of ... things and ... persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter.” Questions concerning the check and the settlement with the bank I think qualify for discovery under either requirement of the Rule. Thus, by denying discovery, the district" court decided the case on a necessarily incomplete record.