Clairemont Sterilized Egg Co. v. Kasser Egg Process Co.

These interrogatories raise questions as to which there has been an apparent diversity of ruling in this court, and the practice with regard to which should be made uniform. The objections to them fall within three groups, which will be considered separately.

Plaintiff objects to interrogatories 1 — 84, on the ground that they call for evidence as to the dates of invention or conception of its patents, and as to the dates of their re-, duction to practice. The argument is that to compel disclosure of such matters is to encourage the production of false evidence. In reply it is argued that to require plaintiff to disclose the dates of invention of its patents, not only is in keeping with, the ob *144 vious spirit and purpose of the new equity rules, but is desirable as tending to expedite the trial at all its stages.

In the Southern district of California defendants’ view obtains. Miller & Pardee, Inc., v. Lawrence A. Sweet Manufacturing Co. (D. C.) 3 F.(2d) 198 . Likewise in the Southern district of New York, Judges Mayer, Hough, and Learned Hand (all now of the Circuit Court of Appeals of the Second Circuit) and Judge Augustus N. Hand have joined in an opinion that dates of…