§Why CasetextPricing

Beyond Systems, Inc. v. Kraft Foods, Inc. et al

RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION for Reconsideration Of The Ruling In DE# 344 Finding No Common Interest Agreement

10 Cited authorities

  1. Pacific Ins. Co. v. American Nat. Fire Ins. Co.

    148 F.3d 396 (4th Cir. 1998)   Cited 2,013 times
    Holding that, absent justification, Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motions "may not be used . . . to raise arguments which could have been raised prior to the issuance of the judgment"

  2. Reid v. Angelone

    369 F.3d 363 (4th Cir. 2004)   Cited 598 times
    Holding true Rule 60(b) motion is subject to COA requirement

  3. Cray Communications, Inc. v. Novatel Computer System, Inc.

    33 F.3d 390 (4th Cir. 1994)   Cited 486 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that district court did not abuse discretion in denying 59(e) motion when litigant's only justification for not presenting supplemental evidence earlier was that its lawyer thought it was "unnecessary"

  4. Compton v. Alton Steamship Co.

    608 F.2d 96 (4th Cir. 1979)   Cited 492 times
    Holding that a Rule 60(b) motion should not be granted where "the party in whose favor judgement has been entered will be unfairly prejudiced by the vacation of his judgment"

  5. Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc.

    250 F.R.D. 251 (D. Md. 2008)   Cited 116 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Finding that defendant “point[ed] to no overriding interests of justice to excuse the consequences of producing privileged materials”

  6. RGI, Inc. v. Unified Industries, Inc.

    963 F.2d 658 (4th Cir. 1992)   Cited 105 times
    Concluding that a district court can accept new evidence under Rule 59(e) as long as the party provides justification for why the evidence was not presented previously

  7. Minebea Co., Ltd. v. Papst

    228 F.R.D. 13 (D.D.C. 2005)   Cited 26 times
    Finding that even with a joint defense agreement in place, "the party seeking to claim privilege still must demonstrate that the specific communications at issue were designed to facilitate a common legal interest; a business or commercial interest will not suffice"

  8. Mateti v. Activus Financial, LLC

    Civil Action No. DKC 2008-0540 (D. Md. Oct. 27, 2009)   Cited 8 times

    Civil Action No. DKC 2008-0540. October 27, 2009 MEMORANDUM OPINION DEBORAH CHASANOW, District Judge Presently pending and ready for resolution in this debt collection case are: (1) a motion for reconsideration of the court's August 14, 2009 order filed by Plaintiffs (Paper 57), (2) a motion for reconsideration of the court's August 14, 2009 order filed by Defendants (Paper 58), and (3) a motion to strike Defendants' motion for reconsideration filed by Plaintiffs (Paper 63). The issues are briefed

  9. AGV SPORTS GROUP, INC. v. PROTUS IP SOLUTIONS, INC.

    Civil Action No.: RDB-08-3388 (D. Md. Apr. 15, 2010)   Cited 4 times

    Civil Action No.: RDB-08-3388. April 15, 2010 MEMORANDUM OPINION RICHARD BENNETT, District Judge This case has been brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C. § 227 (Count I), and the Maryland Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("Maryland TCPA"), Maryland Ann. Code, Commercial Law Art., §§ 14-3201 and 14-3202 (Counts II III), by a group of seven Plaintiffs: (1) AGV Sports Group, Inc.; (2) Baltimore Podiatry Group, Drs. Scheffler Sheitel, P.A.; (3) Givens Collision Repair

  10. Rule 60 - Relief from a Judgment or Order

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 60   Cited 56,171 times   154 Legal Analyses
    Granting relief from the operation of a judgment