20 F.R.D. 596 | D. Del. | 1957
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages caused, he alleges, by the use of “Cheer”, a product either manufactured, packaged, sold or distributed by defendant.
1. The primary question is whether on the alleged facts inter-corporate liability is relevant to the subject matter involved. If it is, the question arises whether, on his showing, plaintiff is entitled to a continuance.
There is authority which sets out the circumstances under which one corporate entity must respond for the torts of another.
2. As to plaintiff’s motion for continuance, FR 56(f) grants broad dis-creation to the trial judge. Although plaintiff’s affidavit is lacking in some respects, it recites sufficient reason to conclude it would be unjust to hear and determine defendant’s motion for summary judgment without affording plaintiff the opportunity to utilize full discovery procedures in order to oppose
Orders may be submitted in accordance therewith.
. Also see D.C.Del., 16 F.R.D. 128; D.C.Del., 18 F.R.D. 301, for exposition of the facts of this case.
. See Ballantine on Corporations § 138; Stevens on Corporations § 17.
. Professor Moore states: “The party serving the interrogatories may designate therein a particular officer whom he desires to answer the interrogatories or may leave it with the adverse party to select an officer to make the answers. Regardless of which party designates the officer to answer, however, the person verifying the answers must furnish whatever information is available to the party." 4 Moore, Federal Practice, pp. 2278-2279.
. 6 Moore, Federal Practice, p. 2349.