discussed Cited "see" Evans v. Chicago Football Franchise Ltd. Partnership See El Salto S.A. v. PSG Co., 444 F.2d 477 , 484 n. 3 (9th Cir.) (“a judgment creditor proceeding under Rule 69(a) may utilize either State practice or the federal rules for taking depositions”), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 940 , 92 S.Ct. 273 , 30 L.Ed.2d 253 (1971); Strick Corp. v. Thai Teak Products Co., 493 F.Supp. 1210, 1211 (E.D.Pa.1980) (“the judgment creditor may utilize either Federal or State discovery rules”); Caisson Corp. v. County West Building Corp., 62 F.R.D. 331 (E.D.Pa.1974) (“under [Rule 69(a)], discovery may be had of the judgment debtor or third persons without separat…

cited Cited "see" Herbert Hall v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., Etc., Employers National Insurance Company, Intervenor-Appellee See Brody v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 438 F.2d 1148 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 940 , 92 S.Ct. 273 , 30 L.Ed.2d 253 (1971); Louisiana Ry. & Nav.

cited Cited "see" Jones v. State See Johnson v. State, *679 467 S.W.2d 247 (Tex.Cr.App.1971), cert. den., 404 U.S. 951 , 92 S.Ct. 273 , 30 L.Ed.2d 268 ; Corpus v. State, 463 S.W.2d 4 (Tex.Cr.App.1971).

discussed Cited "see, e.g." British International Insurance v. Seguros La Republica, S.A. Rule 69(a) provides the judgment creditor with “a choice between using the federal discovery rules and using the practice of the state court.” Evans, 127 F.R.D. at 498 ; see also El Salto S.A. v. PSG Co., 444 F.2d 477 , 484 n. 3 (9th Cir.) (“a judgment creditor proceeding under Rule 69(a) may utilize either State practice or the federal rules for taking depositions”), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 940 , 92 S.Ct. 273 , 30 L.Ed.2d 253 (1971); Stride Corp., 493 F.Supp. at 1211 (E.D.Pa.1980) (“the judgment creditor may utilize either Federal or State discovery rules”).