§Why CasetextPricing

Brady et al v. Xe Services LLC et al

RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION for Protective Order

11 Cited authorities

  1. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz

    471 U.S. 462 (1985)   Cited 17,086 times   46 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a defendant has "fair warning" if he purposefully directs his activities at residents of the forum and if the litigation results from alleged injuries arising out of or relating to those activities.

  2. Helicopteros Nacionales de Colom. v. Hall

    466 U.S. 408 (1984)   Cited 9,375 times   26 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “purchases, even if occurring at regular intervals” were insufficient to establish general personal jurisdiction over a nonresident corporation

  3. Tri-State Hosp. Supply Corp. v. U.S.

    226 F.R.D. 118 (D.D.C. 2005)   Cited 68 times
    Holding that "[b]y its very nature, the discovery process entails asking witnesses questions about matters that have been the subject of other discovery"

  4. Kron Medical Corp. v. Groth

    119 F.R.D. 636 (M.D.N.C. 1988)   Cited 50 times

    Complaint was filed alleging that defendant appropriated business secrets and unlawfully opened business in Ohio which competed with plaintiffs. Defendant filed motion to state discovery pending resolution of his motion to transfer case to the Northern District of Ohio for the convenience of parties and witnesses. The District Court, Russell A. Eliason, United States Magistrate, held that defendant failed to make sufficient showing of good cause to warrant stay of discovery. Motion denied. Thaddeus

  5. PCS Phosphate Co. v. Norfolk Southern Corp.

    520 F. Supp. 2d 705 (E.D.N.C. 2007)   Cited 16 times

    No. 4:05-CV-55-D. September 28, 2007. Charles E. Raynal, IV, Roy B. Thompson, II, Parker, Poe, Adams Bernstein, LLP, Raleigh, NC, for Plaintiff. John S. Byrd, II, Odes L. Stroupe, Jr., Bode, Call Stroupe, Raleigh, NC, for Defendants. ORDER JAMES C. DEVER III, District Judge. PCS Phosphate Company, Inc. ("PCS" or "plaintiff") filed suit against Norfolk Southern Corporation ("NSC") and Norfolk Southern Railway Company ("NSRC") (collectively "defendants") for breach of contract, breach of easement covenants

  6. Regent Lighting Corp. v. Galaxy Elec. Mfg., Inc.

    933 F. Supp. 507 (M.D.N.C. 1996)   Cited 25 times

    No. 2:95cv38 April 29, 1996 Robert Wishart, Pamela Duffy, Burlington, NC, for plaintiff. Cynthia Wittmer, Catharine Arrowood, Raleigh, NC, for defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION BEATY, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on Defendant Galaxy Electrical Manufacturing, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, Motion to Transfer Venue and Plaintiff Regent Lighting Corp.'s Motion to Compel Responses to Discovery. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff Regent Lighting Corp. ("Regent") is a Delaware

  7. Spicer v. Universal Forest Products

    Civil Action No. 7:07cv462 (W.D. Va. Oct. 1, 2008)   Cited 3 times

    Civil Action No. 7:07cv462. October 1, 2008 MEMORANDUM OPINION MICHAEL URBANSKI, Magistrate Judge This matter is before the court on plaintiff Timmy Spicer's ("Spicer") motion for sanctions against defendants Universal Forest Products Eastern Division, Inc. ("Universal") and Scott Weeks ("Weeks") for violations of discovery rules and orders in this case. The matter has been briefed and oral argument was held on September 19, 2008. In this employment case, Spicer alleges that he was wrongfully terminated

  8. Trounstine v. Bauer, Pogue Co.

    44 F. Supp. 767 (S.D.N.Y. 1942)   Cited 13 times

    March 31, 1942. Joseph Rilander, of New York City (Edgar J. Bernheimer, Sidney Rosenbaum, and Sidney J. Schwartz, all of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff. Benjamin P. DeWitt, of New York City, (Benjamin P. DeWitt and Sidney Pepper, both of New York City, of counsel), for defendant Bauer, Pogue Co., Inc. Sidney Pepper, of New York City (Benjamin P. DeWitt and Sidney Pepper, both of New York City, of counsel), for defendant Frederick R. Bauer. BRIGHT, District Judge. Plaintiff brings this

  9. Rule 4 - Summons

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 4   Cited 71,368 times   127 Legal Analyses
    Holding that if defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on a motion, or on its own following notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made by a certain time

  10. Rule 30 - Depositions by Oral Examination

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 30   Cited 16,547 times   131 Legal Analyses
    Upholding a district court's decision not to consider the plaintiff's deposition errata sheets in opposition to a motion for summary judgment when they were untimely

  11. Section 2679 - Exclusiveness of remedy

    28 U.S.C. § 2679   Cited 5,417 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Granting tort immunity to federal agency employees