14 Cited authorities

Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc.
530 U.S. 133 (2000) Cited 21,083 times 22 Legal Analyses
Holding that, since the 58-year-old plaintiff was fired by his 60-year-old employer, there was an inference that "age discrimination was not the motive"
Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters
438 U.S. 567 (1978) Cited 2,160 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that a district court was "entitled to consider the racial mix of the work force when trying to make the determination as to motivation" in the employment discrimination context
United Air Lines, Inc. v. Evans
431 U.S. 553 (1977) Cited 1,332 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that an allegedly discriminatory practice that was no longer actionable could not form the predicate of a challenge to a neutral seniority system
Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants
959 F.2d 1468 (9th Cir. 1992) Cited 561 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that an instrumentality of a foreign nation must respond to discovery about its worldwide assets and that it could not use the FSIA to conceal its assets from the district court
Computer Economics, Inc. v. Gartner Group, Inc.
50 F. Supp. 2d 980 (S.D. Cal. 1999) Cited 201 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that Section 2019.210 complements rather than conflicts with federal discovery rules
Carpinteria Valley Farms v. Cty, Santa Barbara
344 F.3d 822 (9th Cir. 2003) Cited 170 times
Holding that a district court's decision not to hold oral argument on a motion to dismiss was not an abuse of discretion
Aponte-Navedo v. Nalco Chem. Co.
268 F.R.D. 31 (D.P.R. 2010) Cited 26 times
Noting that "[d]iscovery in disparate treatment cases has been limited to employees within certain work units and who have suffered similar treatment as the plaintiff"
Glenn v. Williams
209 F.R.D. 279 (D.D.C. 2002) Cited 31 times
Finding ten years "an inordinate length of time" and reducing time period to three years
Briddell v. Saint Gobain Abrasives Inc.
233 F.R.D. 57 (D. Mass. 2005) Cited 26 times
Observing that a 30(b) witness may properly be expected to prepare to testify as to matters “beyond [those] personally known to that designee or to matters in which that designee was personally involved”
Sánchez-Medina v. Unicco Service Co.
265 F.R.D. 24 (D.P.R. 2009) Cited 20 times
Anibal Escanellas-Rivera, Maria T. Juan-Urrutia, Escanellas & Juan, San Juan, PR, for Plaintiffs. Elizabeth M. Lizardi-Mendez, Francisco M. Ramirez-Rivera, Martinez Odell & Calabria, Enrique M. Almeida-Bernal, Almeida Law Office, Anita Montaner-Sevillano, Karen Morales-Ramirez, McConnell Valdes, San Juan, PR, for Defendants. OPINION AND ORDER JUSTO ARENAS, United States Chief Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the court on plaintiffs' request that defendants be ordered to immediately produce
Section 636 - Jurisdiction, powers, and temporary assignment
28 U.S.C. § 636 Cited 499,815 times 39 Legal Analyses
Holding that when a party fails to object to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, our review of the district court's resulting decision is for plain error so long as the party "has been served with notice that [this consequence] will result from a failure to object"

Doubt v. NCR Corporation

14 Cited authorities

Holding that, since the 58-year-old plaintiff was fired by his 60-year-old employer, there was an inference that "age discrimination was not the motive"

Holding that a district court was "entitled to consider the racial mix of the work force when trying to make the determination as to motivation" in the employment discrimination context

Holding that an allegedly discriminatory practice that was no longer actionable could not form the predicate of a challenge to a neutral seniority system

Holding that an instrumentality of a foreign nation must respond to discovery about its worldwide assets and that it could not use the FSIA to conceal its assets from the district court

Holding that Section 2019.210 complements rather than conflicts with federal discovery rules

Holding that a district court's decision not to hold oral argument on a motion to dismiss was not an abuse of discretion

Noting that "[d]iscovery in disparate treatment cases has been limited to employees within certain work units and who have suffered similar treatment as the plaintiff"

Finding ten years "an inordinate length of time" and reducing time period to three years

Observing that a 30(b) witness may properly be expected to prepare to testify as to matters “beyond [those] personally known to that designee or to matters in which that designee was personally involved”

Holding that when a party fails to object to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, our review of the district court's resulting decision is for plain error so long as the party "has been served with notice that [this consequence] will result from a failure to object"