Republic of France v. Belships Co., Limited, Skibs A/S
| Decision Date | 20 July 1950 |
| Parties | REPUBLIC OF FRANCE v. BELSHIPS CO., LIMITED, SKIBS A/S. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Cleary, Gottlieb, Friendly & Cox, New York City, Fowler Hamilton, New York City, George W. Ball, Washington, D. C., Jerome E. Hyman, New York City, of counsel, for libellant.
Haight, Deming, Gardner, Poor & Havens, New York City, and Pyne, Lynch & Smith, New York City, Charles S. Haight, Anthony V. Lynch, Jr., Gordon W. Paulsen, New York City, of counsel, for respondent.
Leonard J. Matteson, New York City, amicus curiæ.
HOLTZOFF, District Judge (sitting by designation).
This is a suit in admiralty. The libellant served notice of taking depositions of certain named witnesses. The respondent moved to vacate the notice. The motion was denied and the respondent now moves for a reargument.
The question presented is whether local Admiralty Rule 46, governing depositions in admiralty cases, is valid. That rule provides that the taking and use of depositions shall be governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., except that their use shall be limited in the manner expressly provided in the rule. It is urged that this rule is inconsistent with the general Admiralty Rule 46, promulgated by the Supreme Court, 28 U.S.C.A., which provides that "in all trials in admiralty the testimony of witnesses shall be taken orally in open court, except as otherwise provided by statute, or agreement of parties".
The general rule, however, regulates only the manner in which the trial shall be conducted. It does not bear on matters preliminary to the trial. Under modern practice, depositions may be taken for purposes of discovery as well as for use at the trial. It necessarily follows, therefore, that by local rule, the District Court may permit the taking of depositions, since their use for discovery does not contravene the general rule. The person taking the depositions is not required to specify the manner in which they are to be used.
It is further urged that the rule is inconsistent with the statute regulating the taking of depositions de bene esse for use at the trial (R.S. 863, U. S. Code, old Title 28, sec. 639).1 This section has not been repealed, Mercado v. U. S., 2 Cir., 1950, 184 F.2d 24, although it has been superseded by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as to all civil actions to which those rules apply. The limitations contained in local Rule 46, however, on the use of depositions at the trial are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miner v. Atlass
...that provision as having been promulgated with reference to the trial and not the discovery stage of the lawsuit. See Republic of France v. Belships Co., Ltd., supra. For much the same reason, we do not deem the challenged rule inconsistent with the de bene esse statute, note 2, ante. That ......
-
Atlass v. Miner
...of New York have taken a position of supporting local Admiralty Rule 46 of that district. In Republic of France v. Belships Co., Limited, Skibs A/S, D.C.S.D.N.Y.1950, 91 F.Supp. 912, Judge Holtzoff held that such local admiralty rule was valid, and that it was not inconsistent with Supreme ......
-
Ludena v. The Santa Luisa
...The motion is granted. Settle order. 1 D.C.S.D.N.Y., 87 F.Supp. 79. 2 D.C.S.D.N.Y., 88 F.Supp. 895. 3 Republic of France v. Belships Co., Ltd., Skibs A/S, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 91 F.Supp. 912. The Edmund Fanning, note 2 supra, and Mulligan v. United States, note 1 supra, were decided before the ado......