American Industrial Contr., Inc. v. Johns-Manville Corp., Civ. A. No. 70-526.
| Decision Date | 25 May 1971 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 70-526. |
| Citation | 326 F. Supp. 879 |
| Parties | AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL CONTRACTING, INC. v. JOHNS-MANVILLE CORPORATION et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Wm. Claney Smith, Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiff.
John Cramer, Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
On February 17, 1971, this court directed two defendants, Canadian Johns-Manville Ltd. and Canadian Johns-Manville Asbestos Ltd., to answer certain interrogatories propounded to it by the plaintiff under Rule 33 F.R.Civ.P. Particularly interrogatories 69, 70 and 71 were ordered to be answered with some limitations. This is an anti-trust case involving alleged monopolistic practices with respect to asbestos fibers. The interrogatories in question required the defendants to supply information as to the price per ton at which asbestos fibers were sold to various manufacturers of thermal insulation products in the United States, the cost per ton of mining and processing the same and the profit per ton stated in the financial reports of those companies for the past ten years.
The Canadian defendants have now filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the order directing them to answer these interrogatories. The parties were directed to file briefs with respect to the matter with the motion to be disposed of without oral argument, pursuant to Rule 78 of the F.R.C.P. following the filing of briefs. These briefs have been filed. The court has considered the matter and has concluded that the Motion for Reconsideration should be denied at the present time.
The Motion for Reconsideration is based upon an Act of the Provincial Legislature of the Province of Quebec, Canada, under which the Canadian defendants are incorporated. This is the Business Concerns Record Act, Chapter 278 (Act 6-7 Elizabeth II, c. 42).
Briefly, this legislation provides that no person shall send out of the province any document or résumé or digest of any document of a business concern. The prohibition does not apply to removal of documents to the principal head office or to an affiliated company in the ordinary course of business. The statute is not self-enforcing but requires a petition by the Attorney General to a district judge for an order requiring the documents not be sent out of the province.
There is no allegation in the Motion for Reconsideration that any application by the Attorney General of Quebec is pending before any court. There is no allegation that this very information has not already been sent to the main office of the parent corporation, Johns-Manville Corporation, in the United States. It appears that Canadian Johns-Manville Ltd. and Canadian Johns-Manville Asbestos Ltd. are wholly owned subsidiaries of the American corporation and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it would seem that the parent corporation would have the information necessary to answer these interrogatories in its own...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United Nuclear Corp. v. General Atomic Co.
...in similar situations. See In Re Uranium Antitrust Litigation, supra, 480 F.Supp. at 1143; American Industrial Contr., Inc. v. Johns-Manville Corp., 326 F.Supp. 879, 880 (W.D.Pa.1971).108 United States v. 58.16 Acres of Land, Etc., Clinton Cty., Ill., supra, 66 F.R.D. at 572 (citations omit......
-
Mountain Crest SRL, LLC v. Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV
...doctrine applies to member states of West Germany), aff’d 433 F.2d 686 (2d Cir. 1970). But see Am. Indus. Contracting, Inc. v. Johns-Manville Corp. , 326 F. Supp. 879, 881 (W.D. Pa. 1971) (determining that "[t]he province of Quebec is not a State within the meanings of the doctrines of inte......
-
Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Superior Court
...through diplomatic channels, with direct reference to the orders in question. (Cf., e. g., American Industrial Contr., Inc. v. Johns-Manville Corp. (W.D.Pa.1971) 326 F.Supp. 879, 880-881; Arthur Andersen & Co. v. Finesilver, supra, 546 F.2d at p. 342.) In VWAG 1973, a West German aide memoi......
-
Gebr. Eickhoff Maschinenfabrik Und Eisengieberei mbH v. Starcher
...(S.D.N.Y.1981); In re Uranium Antitrust Litigation, 480 F.Supp. 1138, 1145-49 (N.D.Ill.1979); American Industrial Contracting, Inc. v. Johns-Mansville Corp., 326 F.Supp. 879, 880 (W.D.Pa.1971).8 We note that, as a general rule, "The local law of the forum governs ... pre-trial practice, inc......
-
Table of Cases
...Health Sys. v. Liberty Health Sys., 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2612 (E.D. Pa. 1991), 11 American Indus. Contracting v. Johns-Manville Corp., 326 F. Supp. 879 (W.D. Pa. 1971), 61 Am. Key Corp. v. Cole Nat’l Corp., 762 F.2d 1569 (11th Cir. 1985), 15 American Optical Corp. v. Medtronic, 56 F.R.D. 4......
-
Obtaining Discovery From Third Parties
...applies to discovery requests under FED. R. CIV. P. 34 and 45). 41. See, e.g. , American Indus. Contracting v. Johns-Manville Corp., 326 F. Supp. 879 (W.D. Pa. 1971) (two wholly owned Canadian subsidiaries of U.S. corporation required to answer interrogatories seeking information that ordin......