Friedberg v. Siracusa Co.

• Citation: 46 A.2d 54
• Parties: FRIEDBERG v. SIRACUSA CO.
• Decision Date: 27 February 1946
• Court: New Jersey Circuit Court

46 A.2d 54

FRIEDBERG

v.SIRACUSA CO.

Circuit Court of New Jersey.

Feb. 27, 1946.

Action at law by Benjamin Friedberg against Siracusa Company, a corporation. On defendant's motion to strike interrogatories submitted by the plaintiff.

Decision in accordance with opinion.

Lloyd, Horn & Perskie and Herbert Horn, all of Atlantic City, for plaintiff.

46 A.2d 55>>William Elmer Brown, Jr., of Atlantic City, for defendant.

BURLING, Judge.

Interrogatories were submitted by the plaintiff to the defendant as follows:

‘1. Set forth all insurance written or placed for D. & F. Corporation and/or Hotel Knickerbocker Operating Company, stating when the same was placed, the type of insurance, the amount of the premium, the amount of the commission received or to be received by you, how long such insurance was in force in respect to each item.

‘2. State when and where defendant agreed with an officer or officers of D. & F. Corporation to pay brokerage to plaintiff.’

Motion has been made to strike out plaintiff's first interrogatory, upon the following reasons:

‘(a) That the information thereby demanded is not such as is peculiarly within the knowledge of the defendant and is therefore not the proper subject for interrogatories.

‘(b) The information thereby demanded is the private and confidential property of defendant;

‘(c) The said demand is an improper unnecessary and illegal effort on the part of plaintiff to pry into the business and affairs of the defendant;

‘(d) Plaintiff in any event is not entitled to the information demanded until he first establishes the right to the benefit claimed by him under the contract as alleged in plaintiff's complaint.

‘(e) The information demanded is not necessary or essential to the preparation of plaintiff's case for trial; and

‘(f) Said demand is otherwise improper and illegal.’

It was conceded at the oral argument that, if the plaintiff establishes a right to recover, the information demanded is competent, relevant and material in establishing the plaintiff's burden of proof as to damages.

The information is peculiarly within the knowledge of the defendant, particularly since the plaintiff did not contract with the defendant.

Further resistance is based upon the reason that the information is private and confidential property of the defendant. It was conceded upon oral argument that the imformation would be subject to subpoena at the trial. R.S. 2:97-6, N.J.S.A. It is not a trade secret but merely private information relating to the ordinary commercial business of a fire insurance agent.

The defendant in this matter seeks a postponement of the answer to the trial and then only upon a prior determination of liability by the Court, despite the facts are in dispute. There is a discretion resting in the trial judge to regulate the order of proof. Abbotts Civil Jury Trials, 5th Ed., page 197; Bodee v. State, Err. & App.1894, 57 N.J.L. 140, 30 A. 681; Crosby v. Wells, Err. & App.1906, 73 N.J.L. 790, 67 A. 295; State v. James, Err. & App. 1921, 96 N.J.L. 132, 114 A. 553, 16 A.L.R....