§Why CasetextPricing

Mark D Davis v. Davidson Hotel Company LLC et al

OPPOSITION EX PARTE MOTION SHORTEN TIME FOR A MOTION IN LIMINE re: EX PARTE APPLICATION to Shorten Time for Hearing to July 1, 2013 66 , MOTION IN LIMINE to Exclude Witnesses and to Exclude Any and All Evidence and/or Testimony Pertaining to Harassment of Anyone Other Than Plaintiff 65

4 Cited authorities

  1. McGinest v. GTE Serv. Corp.

    360 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. 2004)   Cited 954 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a plaintiff "may proceed by using the McDonnell Douglas framework, or alternatively, may simply produce direct or circumstantial evidence demonstrating that a discriminatory reason more likely than not motivated" the employer

  2. Mission Power Engineering Co. v. Continental Cas. Co.

    883 F. Supp. 488 (C.D. Cal. 1995)   Cited 192 times
    Holding that a party requesting ex parte relief must establish that its cause will be irreparably prejudiced if the underlying motion is heard according to regular noticed motion procedures, and that it is without fault in creating the crisis that requires ex parte relief, or that the crisis occurred as a result of excusable neglect

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

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 26   Cited 94,817 times   651 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

  4. Rule 401 - Test for Relevant Evidence

    Fed. R. Evid. 401   Cited 13,383 times   34 Legal Analyses
    Providing that evidence is relevant if " it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action"