§Why CasetextPricing

Great Northern Insurance Company v. Hirsch et al

Memorandum in opposition to re MOTION to Compel Disclosure

14 Cited authorities

  1. Pierce v. Underwood

    487 U.S. 552 (1988)   Cited 9,210 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that when Congress reenacts a statute without changing its language, and when there is no indication that “Congress thought it was doing anything ... except reenacting and making permanent” the earlier legislation, a court should not give weight to legislative history pertaining to the reenactment

  2. Alexander v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation

    192 F.R.D. 42 (D.D.C. 2000)   Cited 325 times
    Holding that a defendant had not produced all the documents that she controlled when her responses stated that she had only produced documents that she possessed

  3. United States ex rel. Hockett v. Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp.

    498 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2007)   Cited 117 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a parent corporation is not liable for its subsidiary's FCA violation

  4. Sender v. Mann

    225 F.R.D. 645 (D. Colo. 2004)   Cited 106 times
    Holding that disclosures should be complete and detailed and should give opposing party more than "a laundry list of undifferentiated witnesses" and finding disclosures deficient where plaintiff identified brokers and investors as "having knowledge regarding the sale of promissory notes and the amounts owed to them pursuant to such notes" or "in some instances, having knowledge of other schemes attempted or contemplated by [Defendants]"

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

    246 F.R.D. 29 (D.D.C. 2007)   Cited 88 times
    Finding interrogatory responses with general descriptions incomplete to the extent they do not provide full responses to the questions asked

  6. Ellipso, Inc. v. Mann

    460 F. Supp. 2d 99 (D.D.C. 2006)   Cited 46 times
    Denying discovery motions for lack of "any hint that [the parties] discussed the motions in person or by phone, as required" by the local rule

  7. U.S. v. Am. Tel. Tel. Co.

    86 F.R.D. 603 (D.D.C. 1979)   Cited 103 times
    Holding that order directing all witnesses' direct testimony to be presented in writing, with oral testimony on cross-examination only, would violate Rule 43 because, inter alia, oral testimony is essential to evaluation of witness demeanor and credibility

  8. United States ex rel. Pogue v. Diabetes Treatment Centers of America, Inc.

    235 F.R.D. 521 (D.D.C. 2006)   Cited 40 times
    Finding that "blanket objections on the basis of privilege shall be rejected" when raised in general objections

  9. In re Ullico Inc. Litigation

    237 F.R.D. 314 (D.D.C. 2006)   Cited 15 times
    Concluding that party challenging designations on 99% of the documents produced complied with the meet and confer requirement even though no particular documents were specified in the pre-motion challenge

  10. Campbell v. U.S.

    209 F.R.D. 272 (D.D.C. 2002)   Cited 14 times
    Explaining that the standard of review for interlocutory decisions is set by Rule 54(b)

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

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 26   Cited 97,825 times   674 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

  12. Rule 37 - Failure to Make Disclosures or to Cooperate in Discovery; Sanctions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 37   Cited 47,073 times   326 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a party may be barred from using a witness if it fails to disclose the witness

  13. Rule 1 - Scope and Purpose

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 1   Cited 15,441 times   49 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing the federal rules of civil procedure should be employed to promote the "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding"