§Why CasetextPricing

DL et al v. District of Columbia et al

MOTION to Compel Defendants' Responses to Plaintiffs' First, Second, and Third Sets of Requests for Production of Documents and Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories

38 Cited authorities

  1. Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders

    437 U.S. 340 (1978)   Cited 4,379 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. Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC

    229 F.R.D. 422 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)   Cited 290 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[i]n this circuit, a `culpable state of mind' for purposes of a spoliation inference includes ordinary negligence"

  3. Pulsecard, Inc. v. Discover Card Servs., Inc.

    168 F.R.D. 295 (D. Kan. 1996)   Cited 326 times
    Holding that the party seeking an extension of a discovery deadline must show that "despite due diligence it could not have reasonably met the scheduled deadlines"

  4. Equal Rights Ctr. v. Post Props., Inc.

    246 F.R.D. 29 (D.D.C. 2007)   Cited 87 times
    Finding interrogatory responses with general descriptions incomplete to the extent they do not provide full responses to the questions asked

  5. Chubb Integrated Sys. Ltd. v. Nat'l Bank of Wash.

    103 F.R.D. 52 (D.D.C. 1984)   Cited 143 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Denying defendant's request for customer identity information but granting request for sales information as relevant to commercial success in patent infringement case and stating, "to the extent that [the request] seeks the number of customers, but not the names, it is an appropriate inquiry"

  6. Lucero v. Valdez

    240 F.R.D. 591 (D.N.M. 2007)   Cited 62 times
    Stating that “[c]ourts have considerable discretion in determining when contention interrogatories must be answered” and then examining whether the plaintiff had to answer the defendants' interrogatories individually

  7. In re Sulfuric Acid Antitrust Litig.

    231 F.R.D. 351 (N.D. Ill. 2005)   Cited 60 times
    Ruling that when sent to storage, documents do not qualify as kept in the usual course of business and the only option remaining for the producing party is to “organize and label the documents to correspond to the document requests”

  8. Tequila Centinela, S.A. de C.V. v. Bacardi & Co. Ltd.

    242 F.R.D. 1 (D.D.C. 2007)   Cited 56 times
    Holding that a party's responses were deficient because the party failed to state that it made a "reasonable inquiry" prior to finding insufficient information to either admit or deny the RFAs

  9. Jewish War Vets. of the U.S. of America v. Gates

    506 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2007)   Cited 49 times
    Rejecting “the Members' contention that the Constitution categorically bars courts from deciding whether individual documents are legislative in nature, and hence within the ambit of the Speech or Debate Clause”

  10. American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Ringling Bros.

    233 F.R.D. 209 (D.D.C. 2006)   Cited 49 times

    [Copyrighted Material Omitted] Eugene D. Gulland, Joshua D. Wolson, Covington & Burling, Washington, D.C., for defendants. Jonathan Russell Lovvorn, The Humane Society of the United States of America, Washington, DC, Katherine A. Meyer, Kimberly Denise Ockene, Tanya Sanerib, Meyer, Glitzenstein & Crystal, Washington, DC, for plaintiffs. MEMORANDUM OPINION FACCIOLA, United States Magistrate Judge. This case was referred to me for resolution of all unresolved issues raised in Plaintiffs' Motion to

  11. Section 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights

    42 U.S.C. § 1983   Cited 485,060 times   688 Legal Analyses
    Holding liable any state actor who "subjects, or causes [a person] to be subjected" to a constitutional violation

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

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 26   Cited 94,437 times   648 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

  13. Rule 34 - Producing Documents, Electronically Stored Information, and Tangible Things, or Entering onto Land, for Inspection and Other Purposes

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 34   Cited 13,066 times   144 Legal Analyses
    Finding that the rules related to electronic discovery were "not meant to create a routine right of direct access to a party's electronic information system, although such access may be justified in some circumstances."

  14. Section 794 - Nondiscrimination under Federal grants and programs

    29 U.S.C. § 794   Cited 12,293 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Adopting ADA standards for Rehabilitation Act claims

  15. Rule 33 - Interrogatories to Parties

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 33   Cited 10,861 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Rule 30(b)

  16. Section 1400 - Short title; findings; purposes

    20 U.S.C. § 1400   Cited 6,514 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Finding of Congress that "the education of children with disabilities can be made more effective by ... ensuring that families ... have meaningful opportunities to participate"

  17. Section 1412 - State eligibility

    20 U.S.C. § 1412   Cited 3,322 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding the SEA "responsible for ensuring that . . . the requirements of [the IDEA] are met" and "all educational programs . . . meet the educational standards of the [SEA]"

  18. Section 38-2501 - Assessment and placement of special education students. [Repealed]

    D.C. Code § 38-2501   Cited 17 times
    Requiring an "evaluation" within 60 days of a "referral"

  19. Section 1435 - Requirements for statewide system

    20 U.S.C. § 1435   Cited 15 times

    (a) In general A statewide system described in section 1433 of this title shall include, at a minimum, the following components: (1) A rigorous definition of the term "developmental delay" that will be used by the State in carrying out programs under this subchapter in order to appropriately identify infants and toddlers with disabilities that are in need of services under this subchapter. (2) A State policy that is in effect and that ensures that appropriate early intervention services based on

  20. Section 300.601 - State performance plans and data collection

    34 C.F.R. § 300.601   Cited 4 times

    (a)General. Not later than December 3, 2005, each State must have in place a performance plan that evaluates the State's efforts to implement the requirements and purposes of Part B of the Act, and describes how the State will improve such implementation. (1) Each State must submit the State's performance plan to the Secretary for approval in accordance with the approval process described in section 616(c) of the Act. (2) Each State must review its State performance plan at least once every six years

  21. Section 300.208 - Permissive use of funds

    34 C.F.R. § 300.208   Cited 1 times

    (a)Uses. Notwithstanding §§ 300.202 , 300.203(b) , and 300.162(b) , funds provided to an LEA under Part B of the Act may be used for the following activities: (1)Services and aids that also benefit nondisabled children. For the costs of special education and related services, and supplementary aids and services, provided in a regular class or other education-related setting to a child with a disability in accordance with the IEP of the child, even if one or more nondisabled children benefit from