23 Cited authorities

  1. Schlagenhauf v. Holder

    379 U.S. 104 (1964)   Cited 1,423 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "good cause" standard of Fed. R. Civ. P. 35 requires "affirmative showing by the movant"
  2. Societe Nat. Ind. Aero. v. U.S. Dist. Court

    482 U.S. 522 (1987)   Cited 594 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the Hague Convention did not deprive the District Court of the jurisdiction it would otherwise possess to order a foreign national party before it to produce evidence physically located within a signatory nation"
  3. G. Heileman Brewing Co. v. Joseph Oat Corp.

    871 F.2d 648 (7th Cir. 1989)   Cited 714 times
    Holding that sanctions cannot be based on a party's refusal to make a monetary offer
  4. Compagnie Francaise d'Assurance Pour le Commerce Exterieur v. Phillips Petroleum Co.

    105 F.R.D. 16 (S.D.N.Y. 1984)   Cited 194 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the French government, as the "principal" of the entity bringing the lawsuit, should be treated as a party for discovery purposes, but declining to issue an order to compel as a matter of comity
  5. Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran

    349 F. Supp. 2d 1108 (N.D. Ill. 2004)   Cited 71 times

    No. 03 C 9370. December 1, 2004. Timothy M. Murphy, Timothy M. Murply, P.C., Chicago, IL, David J. Strachman, Esq., McIntyre, Tate, Lynch Holt, Providence, RI, for Plaintiffs. Thomas A. Doyle, Matthew G. Allison, Hillary Paige Krantz, Baker McKenzie, Chicago, IL, Lawrence W. Newman, Jacob M. Kaplan, Baker McKenzie, New York, NY, for Citation Third Party Respondents. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ASHMAN, United States Magistrate Judge. The discovery matter now before this Court concerns Plaintiffs'

  6. Nevins v. Bryan

    885 A.2d 233 (Del. Ch. 2005)   Cited 61 times
    Holding that challenged actions were voidable and that equitable defenses barred plaintiff's challenge
  7. Meyer v. Souther Pacific Lines

    199 F.R.D. 610 (N.D. Ill. 2001)   Cited 35 times
    In Meyer, 199 F.R.D. at 615, Amtrak unsuccessfully argued that it did not have a duty to provide adequate warning devices at a rail crossing where it lacked a property interest.
  8. Afros S.P.A. v. Krauss-Maffei Corp.

    113 F.R.D. 127 (D. Del. 1986)   Cited 58 times
    Finding relationship between subsidiary, who is exclusive seller for parent, and parent "very close" because subsidiary was wholly owned by parent, parent's board had substantial oversight, key decisions rested with parent, and documents were previously provided and within subsidiaries reach
  9. In re Uranium Antitrust Litigation

    480 F. Supp. 1138 (N.D. Ill. 1979)   Cited 66 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that formalities separating two corporations could not be used as a screen to disguise the coordinated nature of their enterprise
  10. U.S. v. Cancer Treatment Centers of America

    350 F. Supp. 2d 765 (N.D. Ill. 2004)   Cited 24 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an employee could not be held liable for a breach of contract action because of the strong public policy supporting whistleblower action in FCA cases
  11. Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 26   Cited 96,038 times   662 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37
  12. Rule 45 - Subpoena

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 45   Cited 16,745 times   105 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a subpoena may command a person to attend a trial, hearing, or deposition "within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person"
  13. Rule 30 - Depositions by Oral Examination

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 30   Cited 16,242 times   128 Legal Analyses
    Upholding a district court's decision not to consider the plaintiff's deposition errata sheets in opposition to a motion for summary judgment when they were untimely
  14. Rule 1 - Scope and Purpose

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 1   Cited 15,170 times   48 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"
  15. 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 13,246 times   150 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."