Edward Belfer, Samuel P. Norton, William F. Raff and Leonard I. Turner v. Martin Pence, United States District Judge

Good Law
435 F.2d 121·14 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 982·1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 6242
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 25, 197026391_1California539 words

Opinion

Opinion

Petitioners are officers, directors or alleged managing agents of a eorporation against which suit has been brought in the District Court for the District of Hawaii. Their depositions were taken in the Central District of California. Dissatisfied with their responses, the District Court for the District of Hawaii entered an order that defendant corporation and petitioners, individually, disclose certain information in writing. Petitioners seek from this court a writ of mandamus or prohibition, in effect vacating the order of the District Court in so far as it applies to them.

Relying on Rule 37(a) (1), Fed.R. Civ.P., petitioners contend that the District Court for the District of Hawaii has no authority to order them to give testimony. They urge that they are witnesses, not parties, for purposes of discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, since the information sought from them does not relate to their official corporate duties. See Mulligan v. Eastern S. S. Lines, 6 F.R.D. 601 (S.D.N.Y.1946). They concede that the Hawaii court does have authority to order their corporation, as party defendant, to provide the information sought from them, see 4 Moore’s Federal…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.