Sonken-Galamba Corporation v. Atchison, T. & SF Ry. Co., 124.
| Decision Date | 21 December 1939 |
| Docket Number | No. 124.,124. |
| Citation | 30 F. Supp. 936 |
| Parties | SONKEN-GALAMBA CORPORATION et al. v. ATCHISON, T. & S. F. RY. CO. et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri |
I. J. Ringolsky, William Boatright, and Harry Jacobs of Ringolsky, Boatright & Jacobs, all of Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiffs.
Geo. Mersereau and Dean Wood of Lathrop, Crane, Reynolds, Sawyer & Mersereau, Ellison A. Neel of Cooper, Neel & Sutherland, and Leslie A. Welch, all of Kansas City, Mo., for defendants.
Plaintiffs' two motions to produce documents (one filed December 16, 1939, the other filed December 18, 1939) should be overruled.
Rule 34, Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, provides that "Upon motion of any party showing good cause therefor and upon notice to all other parties, the court in which an action is pending may (1) order any party to produce and permit the inspection and copying or photographing, by or on behalf of the moving party, of any designated documents, papers, books, accounts, letters photographs, objects, or tangible things, not privileged, which constitute or contain evidence material to any matter involved in the action and which are in his possession, custody, or control; * * *." (We have italicized for emphasis certain words and phrases in the rule).
We consider that it was never intended by the Supreme Court that this rule should be used as a dragnet on any fishing expedition. Properly interpreted it cannot be so used. The motion to produce must show good cause, i. e., by a statement of facts, not mere conclusions, why the order prayed should be made. It must designate the document sought and show that that document contains material evidence. Obviously these requirements cannot be complied with if it cannot be known whether the document contains material evidence until after it has been produced and inspected.
The documents sought in these motions are described in such general omnibus language that they are not "designated" at all. Moreover, generally, we have no showing that they contain material evidence except the statement of the movant's conclusion. Where we do have more than that (as in two subdivisions of the motions) we believe, as at present advised, that the allegation of materiality is erroneous.
There is another reason why several subdivisions of these motions should be overruled. They call for "all" documents, satisfying a certain general description, coming to the defendants during periods of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Cummings v. Witthaus
...ex rel. Thompson v. Harris, supra, Haffenberg v. Wendling, 69 N.Y.S. (2d) 546, 27 C.J.S., Discovery, p. 120, Sonken-Galamba Corp. v. A.T. & S.F. Ry. Co. et al., 30 F.Supp. 936, 937. In the cited case, the court said: "We consider that it was never intended . . . that this rule (Federal Rule......
-
State ex rel. Williams v. Buzard
... ... 123, 149 ... S.W. 473; State ex rel. Mo. Pac. R. Co. v. Hall, 325 ... Mo. 102, 27 S.W.2d 1027; State ex rel ... Corp., 4 F.R.D. 328; Sonken-Galamba Corp. v ... Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co., 30 F.Supp. 936; ... corporation at the scene of the casualty?" ... At ... ...
-
Eastern States Corp. v. Eisler
...30 A.2d 867 181 Md. 526 EASTERN STATES CORPORATION v. EISLER. Nos. 29, 30.Court of Appeals of MarylandMarch ... Buda Co., 299 Ill. 133, 132 N.E. 514; Carden v ... Ensminger, ... 903; ... Sonken-Galamba Corp. v. Atcheson, Topeka, Santa Fe Ry ... Co., ... 121, 124, defendant, after being served with process, filed a ... ...
-
Archer v. Cornillaud
...29 F.Supp. 2; Thos. French & Sons v. Carleton Venetian Blind Co., D.C.E.D.N.Y., 30 F.Supp. 903; Sonken-Galamba Corp. v. Atcheson, Topeka, Santa Fe Ry., D.C.W.D.Mo., 30 F.Supp. 936; Vendola Corp. v. Hershey Chocolate Corp., D.C.S.D.N.Y., 1 F.R.D. 359; Courteau v. Interlake S. S. Co., D.C.W.D......