of particulars under the old practice. Under the new Rules its functions are in general the same, except that, in view of the greatly expanded machinery of discovery through the provisions for interrogatories, depositions and production of documents, it will very rarely be needed to enable a defendant to prepare his case for trial.
This complaint states the facts relied upon as a cause of action with sufficient particularity to enable the defendants to answer. In view of the statements made by the plaintiff in his reply brief, the Court will construe the words "generally" in paragraph 16, "universal" in paragraph 18, and "virtual monopoly" in paragraph 23 as referring to the Philadelphia area, a term not requiring further definition.
The complaint does not require further clarification, and the expeditious disposition of the case will not be aided by a dilatory motion which may, and probably will, be duplicated, in effect, by subsequent proceedings.
So far as preparing their case for trial goes, I do not see how these defendants can get anything from a bill of particulars which is not fully available to them through the discovery procedure of the new Rules.
The motion is dismissed.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.