7 Cited authorities

  1. Hilt v. SFC Inc.

    170 F.R.D. 182 (D. Kan. 1997)   Cited 164 times
    Holding that "[t]he discovery rules provide no absolute, unharnessed right to find out every conceivable, relevant fact that opposing litigants know"
  2. Ford Motor Co. v. Edgewood Props., Inc.

    257 F.R.D. 418 (D.N.J. 2009)   Cited 62 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a document request seeking information on Ford's document collection and retention system was impermissible without a showing of bad faith
  3. Bredemus v. International Paper Company

    252 F.R.D. 529 (D. Minn. 2008)   Cited 23 times
    Stating "relevancy under Rule 26 is not without bounds"
  4. Idahosa v. Creve Coeur Police Department

    Case No. 05-cv-1159 (C.D. Ill. Feb. 9, 2007)

    Case No. 05-cv-1159. February 9, 2007 ORDER JOE McDADE, Chief Judge Before this Court are the Motion to Strike the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the plaintiff, Robert O. Idahosa, on December 21, 2006 [Doc. 31] and the Motion to Supplement filed by the defendants, Creve Coeur Police Department, Village of Creve Coeur, and Brian K. Despines, on February 6, 2007 [Doc. 36]. For the reasons that follow, the motion to strike is DENIED and the motion to supplement is GRANTED. Background On November

  5. Stephens v. City of Chicago

    203 F.R.D. 353 (N.D. Ill. 2001)   Cited 1 times

    City employee, suing city and individuals for racial and political patronage discrimination arising out of denial of promotions, moved for reconsideration of order denying motion to compel discovery. The District Court, Rosemond, United States Magistrate Judge, held that: (1) evidence advanced as newly discovered and significant was neither; (2) request for information regarding all promoted persons in employee's department was overbroad; (3) request for daily activity sheets of persons performing

  6. Pearce v. E.F. Hutton Group, Inc.

    117 F.R.D. 477 (D.D.C. 1986)

    Plaintiff moved to compel responses to certain interrogatories. The District Court, Arthur L. Burnett, Sr., United States Magistrate, held that with one exception, plaintiff's motion to compel would be denied. Ordered accordingly. Stephen G. Milliken, Milliken, Van Susteren & Canan, P.C., Washington, D.C., for plaintiff. John J. Walsh, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, New York City, and Washington, D.C., for defendant The E.F. Hutton Group, Inc. Earl J. Silbert, Allen V. Farber, Schwalb, Donnenfeld

  7. Section 181.64 - FALSE STATEMENTS AS INDUCEMENT TO ENTERING EMPLOYMENT

    Minn. Stat. § 181.64   Cited 31 times   1 Legal Analyses

    It shall be unlawful for any person, partnership, company, corporation, association, or organization of any kind, doing business in this state, directly or through any agent or attorney, to induce, influence, persuade, or engage any person to change from one place to another in this state, or to change from any place in any state, territory, or country to any place in this state, to work in any branch of labor through or by means of knowingly false representations, whether spoken, written, or advertised