Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantdiscovery
defendantdiscovery

Related Cases

Best Buy Stores, L.P. v. Developers Diversified Realty Corp., 247 F.R.D. 567, 69 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1035
View Case »
Sanford v. Maid-Rite Corp., 816 F.3d 546
View Case »
McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, Dist. 1, 486 U.S. 429, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 100 L.Ed.2d 440, 56 USLW 4520
View Case »
Sharper Image Corp. v. Honeywell Intern., Inc., 222 F.R.D. 621
View Case »
United States v. Blair, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2021 WL 4339132
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

City of Philadelphia v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp., 1962 WL 70749, 6 Fed.R.Serv.2d 630

Facts

The case involved a dispute over the adequacy of the defendant's answers to discovery requests concerning a proxy statement. The defendant's general counsel, Mr. Wood, had knowledge of relevant facts that should have been disclosed. The court noted that several officers of the defendant had knowledge of the facts surrounding the issuance of the proxy statement but had only partially answered the interrogatories.

The case involved a dispute over the adequacy of the defendant's answers to discovery requests concerning a proxy statement.

Issue

Whether the defendant's claim of privilege regarding information from its general counsel is valid and whether the defendant has provided adequate responses to discovery requests.

Whether the defendant's claim of privilege regarding information from its general counsel is valid and whether the defendant has provided adequate responses to discovery requests.

Rule

The court emphasized that the spirit of the discovery rules requires full and complete answers to interrogatories, and that knowledge possessed by corporate officers must be disclosed.

The court emphasized that the spirit of the discovery rules requires full and complete answers to interrogatories, and that knowledge possessed by corporate officers must be disclosed.

Analysis

The court applied the discovery rules by determining that the defendant's claim of privilege was without valid basis, as the general counsel had knowledge relevant to the proxy statement. The court noted that the defendant's officers, who were in positions of authority, had not fully disclosed the information they possessed, which was necessary for a complete response to the interrogatories.

The court applied the discovery rules by determining that the defendant's claim of privilege was without valid basis, as the general counsel had knowledge relevant to the proxy statement.

Conclusion

The court ordered the defendant to provide full and complete answers to the interrogatories, emphasizing the need for transparency in the discovery process.

The court ordered the defendant to provide full and complete answers to the interrogatories, emphasizing the need for transparency in the discovery process.

Who won?

The court, as the prevailing party, ruled in favor of the need for full disclosure from the defendant, highlighting the inadequacy of their responses.

The court, as the prevailing party, ruled in favor of the need for full disclosure from the defendant, highlighting the inadequacy of their responses.

You must be