§Why CasetextPricing

IN RE: Mentor Corp. Obtape Transobturator Sling Products Liability Litigation

RESPONSE

13 Cited authorities

  1. Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp.

    123 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 1997)   Cited 1,187 times
    Holding that a motion to dismiss challenging the legal sufficiency of a claim should be resolved before discovery begins

  2. Mack v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

    871 F.2d 179 (1st Cir. 1989)   Cited 791 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a party may not "undertake wholly exploratory operations in the vague hope that something helpful will turn up."

  3. Hofer v. Mack Trucks, Inc.

    981 F.2d 377 (8th Cir. 1992)   Cited 552 times
    Holding Rule 26(b) does not "allow fishing expeditions in discovery"

  4. Phipps v. Blakeney

    8 F.3d 788 (11th Cir. 1993)   Cited 186 times
    Holding that district court has broad discretion to control discovery and court's dismissal with prejudice, although most severe sanction under Rule 37, was affirmed

  5. Micro Motion, Inc. v. Kane Steel Co., Inc.

    894 F.2d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 184 times
    Holding that a showing of relevance requires more than speculation and conjecture

  6. U.S. v. O'Keefe

    537 F. Supp. 2d 14 (D.D.C. 2008)   Cited 50 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Noting that in the face of a protest of "inexplicable deficiencies" in a party's production, vague and speculative notions that there, in essence, should be more, are insufficient to compel judicial action

  7. MGP Ingredients, Inc. v. Mars, Incorporated

    CIVIL ACTION No. 06-2318-JWL-DJW (D. Kan. Oct. 15, 2007)   Cited 13 times

    CIVIL ACTION No. 06-2318-JWL-DJW. October 15, 2007 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DAVID WAXSE, Magistrate Judge Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (doc. 61). Plaintiff has served twenty-eight requests for production of documents on Defendant S M Nutec LLC ("SMN") and twenty-six requests for production of documents on Defendant Mars, Inc. ("Mars") (collectively "Defendants"). In response to those requests, Defendants have produced thousands of documents (some of which are electronically

  8. Contratto v. Ethicon, Inc.

    225 F.R.D. 593 (N.D. Cal. 2004)   Cited 6 times
    Finding that § 360i(b) was not intended to prohibit discovery of voluntary physician reports

  9. In re Medtronic, Inc.

    184 F.3d 807 (8th Cir. 1999)   Cited 10 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 98-3804 Submitted: November 16, 1998 Filed: July 26, 1999 On Application for a Writ of Mandamus. Barbara Wrubel, New York, NY, Fran C. Hickman, Little Rock, AR, for petitioner. Wendy M. Keats, DOJ, Washington, DC, Paula J. Casey, U.S. Atty., Little Rock, on amicus brief in support of petitioner. Steven E. Cauley, Henry Hodges, Little Rock, AR, Clay Ragsdale, Birmingham, AL, for respondent. Before BEAM, LOKEN, and MORRIS S. ARNOLD, Circuit Judges. BEAM, Circuit Judge. Petitioner seeks a writ of

  10. 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 13,204 times   149 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."

  11. Section 360i - Records and reports on devices

    21 U.S.C. § 360i   Cited 127 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Defining a "device user facility"

  12. Section 20.63 - Personnel, medical, and similar files, disclosure of which constitutes a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy

    21 C.F.R. § 20.63   Cited 45 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) The names or other information which would identify patients or research subjects in any medical or similar report, test, study, or other research project shall be deleted before the record is made available for public disclosure. (b) The names and other information which would identify patients or research subjects should be deleted from any record before it is submitted to the Food and Drug Administration. If the Food and Drug Administration subsequently needs the names of such individuals

  13. Section 20.111 - Data and information submitted voluntarily to the Food and Drug Administration

    21 C.F.R. § 20.111   Cited 8 times

    (a) The provisions of this section shall apply only to data and information submitted voluntarily to the Food and Drug Administration, whether in the course of a factory inspection or at any other time, and not as a part of any petition, application, master file, or other required submission or request for action. Data and information that may be required to be submitted to the Food and Drug Administration but that are submitted voluntarily instead are not subject to the provisions of this section