§Why CasetextPricing

John D Sarviss v. General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc. et al

REPLY re MOTION for Summary Judgment as to All Claims of Plaintiff / Defendant General Dynamics Information Technology's Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Partial Summary Judgment 28 /Defendant General Dynamics Information Technology, Incs. Reply to Plaintiffs Statement of Genuine Issue in Opposition to Defense Statement of Uncontroverted Facts and Conclusions of Law and Response to Plaintiffs Evidentiary Objections

4 Cited authorities

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.

    477 U.S. 242 (1986)   Cited 236,210 times   38 Legal Analyses
    Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"

  2. Hambleton Bros. Lumber v. Balkin Enterprises

    397 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 2005)   Cited 266 times
    Holding that compliance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(e) and 30(f) is an absolute prerequisite for correcting a deposition under Rule 30(e)

  3. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 328,736 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  4. Section 5-B:7 - Confidentiality of Certain Claims Information

    N.H. Rev. Stat. § 5-B:7

    Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, any information of any pooled risk management program formed or affirmed under this chapter pertaining to claims analysis or claims management shall be privileged and confidential and not subject to disclosure to any third party. RSA 5-B:7 1987, 329:1, eff. July 24, 1987.