10 Cited authorities

Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Westrope
730 F.2d 729 (11th Cir. 1984) Cited 287 times
Finding the district courts are to exercise sound discretion in discovery matters
Salter v. Upjohn Co.
593 F.2d 649 (5th Cir. 1979) Cited 271 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that absent " peculiar circumstances" managing agent deposition should occur at defendant corporation's principal place of business
Baron Financial Corp. v. Natanzon
240 F.R.D. 200 (D. Md. 2006) Cited 66 times
Explaining that the good cause requirement "creates a rather high hurdle for proponents"
McCarthy v. Barnett Bank of Polk County
876 F.2d 89 (11th Cir. 1989) Cited 69 times
No. 88-3615. Non-Argument Calendar. June 27, 1989. Deborah R. Linfield, New York City, for movant-appellant. Peter E. Homer, Karen H. Curtis, Miami, Fla., Robert J. Winicki, Jacksonville, Fla., Robert E. Puterbaugh, Lakeland, Fla., Karl V. Hart, Orlando, Fla., John W. Campbell, Tampa, Fla., for appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Before HILL, FAY and CLARK, Circuit Judges. CLARK, Circuit Judge: This appeal is from the denial of the Lakeland
Baratta v. Homeland Housewares, LLC
242 F.R.D. 641 (S.D. Fla. 2007) Cited 27 times
Finding waiver where a litigant asserts the ACCP in a manner that prejudices her “opponent's case” or for self-serving purposes
Scroggins v. Air Cargo, Inc.
534 F.2d 1124 (5th Cir. 1976) Cited 70 times
In Scroggins, for example, where the issues for summary judgment only included immunity and the nature of the CAB's regulation for an air carrier, the plaintiffs in that case failed to persuade the court that more than those issues were involved in summary judgment.
Rodriguez v. Niagara Cleaning Services, Inc.
CASE NO. 09-22645-CIV-UNGARO/SIMONTON (S.D. Fla. Jun. 24, 2010) Cited 4 times
CASE NO. 09-22645-CIV-UNGARO/SIMONTON. June 24, 2010 ORDER ON DISCOVERY MOTIONS ANDREA SIMONTON, Magistrate Judge Presently pending before the Court are Defendants' Motion to Compel Better Discovery Responses and Unredacted Copies of "Consents to Join" from Plaintiffs, and For Sanctions (DE # 77); Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Responses to Plaintiffs' Second Set of Interrogatories and Second Request for Production of Documents (DE # 91); Defendants' Motion for Protective Order pertaining to Plaintiffs'
DHL Express (Usa), Inc. v. Express Save Industries
CASE NO. 09-60276-CIV-COHN/SELTZER (S.D. Fla. Oct. 19, 2009) Cited 2 times
CASE NO. 09-60276-CIV-COHN/SELTZER. October 19, 2009 ORDER BARRY SELTZER, Magistrate Judge THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff DHL Express (USA), Inc.'s Motion to Compel Appearance of Defendant Express Save Industries, Inc. at Deposition (DE 48) and Defendant ESI's Motion for a Protective Order (DE 49) and the Court being sufficiently advised, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is GRANTED and Defendant's Motion for a Protective Order is DENIED for the reasons set forth
Smith v. Waverly Partners, LLC
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:10CV28-RLV-DSC (W.D.N.C. Oct. 6, 2010)
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:10CV28-RLV-DSC. October 6, 2010 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DAVID CAYER, Magistrate Judge THIS MATTER is before the Court on "Defendant AlliedBarton Security Services LLC's Motion to Stay Discovery" (document #42) filed September 21, 2010 and "Defendant Waverly Partners, LLC's Memorandum in Opposition to AlliedBarton Security Services, LLC's Motion to Stay Discovery" (document #43) filed October 4, 2010. This Motion has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28
Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 Cited 94,988 times 653 Legal Analyses
Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

In Re: Checking Account Overdraft Litigation

10 Cited authorities

Finding the district courts are to exercise sound discretion in discovery matters

Holding that absent " peculiar circumstances" managing agent deposition should occur at defendant corporation's principal place of business

Explaining that the good cause requirement "creates a rather high hurdle for proponents"

Finding waiver where a litigant asserts the ACCP in a manner that prejudices her “opponent's case” or for self-serving purposes

In Scroggins, for example, where the issues for summary judgment only included immunity and the nature of the CAB's regulation for an air carrier, the plaintiffs in that case failed to persuade the court that more than those issues were involved in summary judgment.

Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37