J. H. Day Co. v. Mountain City Mill Co.

• Decision Date: 23 July 1915
• Docket Number: 10.
• Parties: J. H. DAY CO. v. MOUNTAIN CITY MILL CO. et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee

225 F. 622

J. H. DAY CO. v. MOUNTAIN CITY MILL CO. et al.

No. 10.

United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, Southern Division.

July 23, 1915

James L. Hopkins, of St. Louis, Mo., and Cooke, Swaney & Hope, of Chattanooga, Tenn., for plaintiff.

Watkins & Watkins, of Chattanooga, Tenn., and Emery, Booth, Janney &amp Varney, of Boston, Mass., for defendants.

SANFORD District Judge.

The 58th Equity Rule, promulgated by the Supreme Court in 1912 (198 F. xxxiv, 115 C.C.A. xxxiv) provides that:

'The plaintiff at any time after filing the bill and not later than twenty-one days after the joinder of issue, and the defendant at any time after filing his answer and not later than twenty-one days after the joinder of issue, and either party at any time thereafter by leave of the court or judge, may file interrogatories in writing for the discovery by the opposite party or parties of facts and documents material to the support or defense of the cause. * * * The court or judge, upon motion and reasonable notice, may make all such orders as may be appropriate to enforce answers to interrogatories or to effect the inspection or production of documents in the possession of either party and containing evidence material to the cause of action or defense of his adversary.' Prior to the adoption of this rule it was well settled that a complainant was entitled to a discovery of such facts and documents only as would aid in the maintenance of his own title or cause of action, and not to matters that related exclusively to the defendant's title or ground of defense; and that interrogatories which went beyond this and sought a disclosure of the defendant's title or claim having no relation to the complainant's title or cause of action, were inquisitorial and unwarranted. Kelley v. Boettcher (8th Circ.) 85 F. 55, 60, 29 C.C.A. 14; McClaskey v. Barr (C.C.) 40 F. 559, and authorities therein cited; 2 Street's Fed.Eq.Pract.s. 1872, p. 1126. This rule did not, however, defeat the complainant's right to discovery in the case where the matter in question happened to pertain both to the complainant's title or cause of action and to the defendant's title or ground of defense. 2 Street's Fed. Eq. Pract. supra.

After careful consideration I think it clear that the 58th Equity Rule was intended merely to change the procedure in reference to obtaining discovery and to extend this right to a defendant as well as to a plaintiff, and was not intended to change the long established rule in reference to the subject matter of such discovery or to extend such right in favor of either party beyond the matters relating to his own ground of action or defense, respectively, and enable him to obtain discovery in reference to matters relating solely to the ground of action or defense of the other party. In other words, under this rule the plaintiff's right of discovery extends only to facts resting in the knowledge of the defendant or documents in his possession material to the support of the plaintiff's case; and the defendant's correlative right of discovery, only to facts and matters material to his defense; and neither is entitled to discovery of an inquisitorial character as to the ground of action or defense of the other; although, as theretofore, the right to such discovery as to matters material to the cause of action or defense of the interrogating party will not be defeated by the fact that such matters also involve the ground of defense or action of the interrogated party. This construction of the rule is, I think, emphasized by the fact that the plaintiff is given the right to file interrogatories at any time after his bill is filed, although the answer may not have yet been filed, and at a time when the interrogatories can relate only to his own cause of action; while, on the other hand, the defendant is given no right to file interrogatories until after his answer has been filed, thus indicating that the discovery to which he is...