§Why CasetextPricing

Team Marketing Group Inc et al v. Hyde et al

MEMORANDUM in Opposition re MOTION to Compel Production of Documents

14 Cited authorities

  1. Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders

    437 U.S. 340 (1978)   Cited 4,391 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that that the production of putative class members' names pursuant to Federal Rule 26 was not "within the scope of legitimate discovery."

  2. Herbert v. Lando

    441 U.S. 153 (1979)   Cited 1,587 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the relevancy of deposing a defendant publisher in a defamation case about his conduct and mental state could "hardly be doubted" even if the defendant was unlikely to admit to liable conduct in the deposition

  3. Hickman v. Taylor

    329 U.S. 495 (1947)   Cited 6,493 times   31 Legal Analyses
    Holding in the context of the work product privilege that the adversary system requires a party's attorney be permitted to “assemble information, sift what he considers to be the relevant from the irrelevant facts, prepare his legal theories and plan his strategy without undue and needless interference”

  4. Crosby v. Louisiana Health Service and Indem. Co.

    647 F.3d 258 (5th Cir. 2011)   Cited 339 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Reversing trial court's denial of discovery into completeness of the record

  5. Coleman v. American Red Cross

    23 F.3d 1091 (6th Cir. 1994)   Cited 327 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Upholding district court's finding that discovery was unduly burdensome when defendant would be required to "search every file that exist[ed] . . . for any documents that might be of any relevance to any matter in the case"

  6. Zuk v. E. Pa. Psychiatric Inst.

    103 F.3d 294 (3d Cir. 1996)   Cited 184 times
    Holding that § 1927 award is unavailable for failing to adequately investigate the facts and law prior to filing a complaint

  7. Nat. Gas Pipeline Co. of Am. v. Energy Gathering, Inc.

    2 F.3d 1397 (5th Cir. 1993)   Cited 194 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Rule 11 sanctions did not apply to the violation of a discovery order

  8. F.D.I.C. v. LeGrand

    43 F.3d 163 (5th Cir. 1995)   Cited 162 times
    Holding that Rule 42(b) requires appointment of independent prosecutor

  9. Micro Motion, Inc. v. Kane Steel Co., Inc.

    894 F.2d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 184 times
    Holding that a showing of relevance requires more than speculation and conjecture

  10. Russell v. Choicepoint Services, Inc.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 03-199-1, SECTION "K" (4) (E.D. La. Jan. 22, 2004)   Cited 31 times
    Authorizing Reed Elsevier to obtain drivers' personal information from state motor vehicle departments for the narrow purpose of redistributing such information through its Lexis/Nexis service to persons for permissible uses

  11. Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 26   Cited 94,916 times   653 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37