United States v. Jerrold Electronics Corporation, Civ. A. No. 22080.
| Citation | 168 F. Supp. 146 |
| Decision Date | 03 December 1958 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 22080. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. JERROLD ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, National Jerrold Systems, Inc., Jerrold-Northwest, Inc., Jerrold-Southwest, Inc., Jerrold-Ohio, Inc., Jerrold Mid-Atlantic Corporation, and Milton Jerrold Shapp. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Harold K. Wood, U. S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., Victor R. Hansen, Asst. Atty. Gen., Wilford L. Whitley, Jr., John F. Hughes, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff.
Israel Packel, Speiser, Satinsky, Gilliland & Packel, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendants.
In this civil action, the plaintiff, United States of America, has alleged violations of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1, 2) and the Clayton Act (15 U.S. C.A. § 14). The gist of the complaint is that the defendants require operators of community television antenna systems to purchase equipment on a total requirement basis and to purchase Jerrold equipment exclusively, and to subscribe to defendants' engineering service as a condition of obtaining any equipment manufactured by the defendants.
After a general denial of these allegations, the Government served interrogatories upon the defendants which were answered. The defendants then filed 26 interrogatories, of which numbers 1, 5 and 11 were answered and objections were filed to the remainder. Subsequent to the filing of the objections, the defendants, at oral argument, temporarily withdrew interrogatory No. 26.
The basic contention of the Government in objecting to the interrogatories is that the information desired is privileged since it would require divulging the names of confidential informants and complainants.
The Government feels that to supply these names at present will result in the defendants' taking possible economic reprisals against these people and that this will prevent the Government from securing them as witnesses at the trial.
This argument is countered by the defendants who claim that they do not seek the names of informers but only information relating to the various offenses alleged to have been committed by them and the persons involved therein. The defendants also state that the mere assertion of privilege by the Government standing alone is not enough, and since privilege is based upon public policy, the Court must weigh the interests involved herein.
This problem has arisen frequently in civil anti-trust cases and the claim of privilege can only be determined on the facts in the particular case. The Government, in this type of litigation, even though it is subject to discovery rules, is acting in its sovereign capacity. However, it is for the Court to determine whether or not a privilege exists. Mitchell v. Roma, D.C.E.D.Pa.1958, 22 F.R.D. 217.
Generally, it is the character of the information sought that determines and controls whether a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wheatley v. Heideman
...12. Interrogatories should not be disallowed as irrelevant unless clearly outside the scope of the case. United States v. Jerrold Electronics Co., D.C.Pa., 168 F.Supp. 146, 148. See also Mackerer v. New York Cent. R. Co., supra, D.C., 1 F.R.D. 408, Further discussion of plaintiff's first as......
-
THE TEXAS PLUMBING COMPANY v. ZURN INDUSTRIES, INC.
... ... Civ. No. 1877 ... United States District Court N. D ... ...
-
Barger v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...were readily available for interview. This argument was rejected based on the philosophy stated in United States v. Jerrold Electronics Corp., 168 F.Supp. 146, 148 (E.D. Pa. 1958), and which the Court adopted at page 851 as follows: ‘When the information sought relates to the details of the......
-
Dvorak v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, Docket No. 7480-73.
...in this case, even if the argument could be considered generally acceptable, which it is not. Cf. United States V. Jerrold Electronics Corp., 168 F.Supp. 146, 148 (E.D. Pa 1958), an antitrust case that we find especially analogous on this point because of respondent's burden of proof herein......