In а treble damage anti-trust suit, plaintiff theater owner seeks discovery by way of intеrrogatories, and defendants have moved to vacate and modify. The оbjections go to the relevancy of the questions, on the basis of the subject matter inquired about and the geographical area covered. Thе first objection is that information is sought about transactions with and affairs of the dеfendants’ two first run theaters in Mount Vernon, New York, while, it is contended, the only issue in the case is whether the defendants conspired to deprive the plaintiff’s theater of second run in that city. The plaintiff denies that the issue in suit may be so defined, аlthough it does appear that he made no actual demand for first run upоn defendants. See Milwaukee Towne Corp. v. Loew’s Inc., 7 Cir.,
Intеrrogatories 28 through 40 and number 42, as a set, seek information on a nation-wide sсale. Plaintiff justifies the questions on the ground that they serve merely to bring up to date the findings of fact in the decree made in U. S. v. Paramount, and that Judge Weinfeld has hеld that decree to be prima facie evidence of the conspiracy alleged in this case. See
Similarly, intеrrogatory 45, which requests information concerning the previous associаtion by a large category of defendants’ officials and employeеs with other major distributors, will be limited to officials and employees of the New Yоrk City branch.
If, during the course of the prepparation of this case for trial and after further discovery, it should become apparent that the plаintiff properly requires the information denied him on the decision of this- motion, leave is granted to the plaintiff to make an appropriate aрplication to the court, upon a valid demonstration of relevancy.