From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Holland v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co.

United States District Court, District of Columbia
Oct 27, 1961
28 F.R.D. 595 (D.D.C. 1961)

Summary

In Holland v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co., 28 F.R.D. 595 (D.D.C.1961), on the other hand, the court upheld, without prejudice, objections that the interrogatories were addressed to the president of the defendant corporation instead of the party itself.

Summary of this case from Smith v. Insurance Co. of North America

Opinion

         Proceeding respecting defendant corporation's objection to set of interrogatories addressed to defendant's president. The District Court, Holtzoff, J., held that interrogatories may only be directed to an adverse party which, if not an individual, then selects some officer or agent to respond to interrogatories and to swear to the answers.

         Objections to interrogatories sustained, without prejudice.

          Cyrus A. Ansary, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff.

          Robert B. Owen, Washington, D. C., for defendant.


          HOLTZOFF, District Judge.

         The defendant corporation objects to a set of interrogatories served by the plaintiff and addressed to Paul B. Wishart, President, Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Company, on the ground that under Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., interrogatories may be directed only to an adverse party.

          The objection is well founded and will be sustained. There is no warrant in Rule 33 for the service of interrogatories on anyone except an adverse party. There is a provision that if the party served is a corporation or a partnership or association, the interrogatories may be answered by any officer or agent, who shall furnish such information as is available to the party. It is the view of this Court that this provision does not mean that the party serving the interrogatories may select the particular officer or agent of the adverse party and direct the interrogatories by name to such officer or agent. Interrogatories may be directed only to the adverse party, and if the adverse party is not an individual, then the party selects some officer or agent to respond to the interrogatories and to swear to the answers.

         For these reasons, the objections to the set of interrogatories directed to the President of the defendant company are sustained, without prejudice.


Summaries of

Holland v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co.

United States District Court, District of Columbia
Oct 27, 1961
28 F.R.D. 595 (D.D.C. 1961)

In Holland v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co., 28 F.R.D. 595 (D.D.C.1961), on the other hand, the court upheld, without prejudice, objections that the interrogatories were addressed to the president of the defendant corporation instead of the party itself.

Summary of this case from Smith v. Insurance Co. of North America
Case details for

Holland v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co.

Case Details

Full title:Robert D. HOLLAND, Plaintiff, v. MINNEAPOLIS-HONEYWELL REGULATOR CO.…

Court:United States District Court, District of Columbia

Date published: Oct 27, 1961

Citations

28 F.R.D. 595 (D.D.C. 1961)
5 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 516

Citing Cases

Black Panther Party v. Smith

The organization has broad discretion in making this choice. See 8 C. Wright A. Miller, Federal Practice and…

Wirtz v. I.C. Harris & Co.

         It appearing to the Court that Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, pursuant to the…