Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

1 F.R.D. 135

Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Harrison

U.S. District Court

Decided January 8, 1940

U.S. District Court · decided 1940-01-08

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently May 1940

Relies on Blair v. Oesterlein Machine Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1940-01-08

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

HOLLY, District Judge.

¶1On motion to require defendant to answer certain interrogatories.

¶2Defendant will answer interrogatories 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24. In directing defendant to answer these interrogatories I am not determining that the answers will be admissible in evidence. They may or may not be, but if it appears on the trial that the information called for is admissible, having the information in the record will expedite the proceedings.

¶3Defendant need not answer interrogatories 1 to 13, inclusive. I am of the opinion that the information called for is not relevant to the issues raised by the material allegations contained in the pleadings. I have examined the cases cited by plaintiff on this subject, including Blair v. Oesterlein Machine Co., 275 U.S. 220, 48 S.Ct. 87, 72 L.Ed 249, and do not consider them in point.

¶4On defendant’s motion to strike plaintiff’s second amendment to the complaint.

¶5This motion will be sustained for the reasons set out in defendant’s brief.

¶6An order will be entered accordingly.

/1/frd/135 · .json · Public domain