21 Cited authorities

  1. Reed v. Bennett

    193 F.R.D. 689 (D. Kan. 2000)   Cited 124 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Ruling that to establish good cause, the moving party must show "that disclosure of the information will result in a 'clearly defined and serious injury'"
  2. King v. Pratt & Whitney, a Div. of United Techs. Corp.

    161 F.R.D. 475 (S.D. Fla. 1995)   Cited 78 times
    Holding that a corporate designee is not obligated to answer questions outside of the scope of noticed areas of examination
  3. Hasbro, Inc. v. Serafino

    168 F.R.D. 99 (D. Mass. 1996)   Cited 71 times
    Holding documents sought from parties must be requested through Rule 34
  4. Calzaturficio S.C.A.R.P.A. S.P.A. v. Fabiano Shoe Co.

    201 F.R.D. 33 (D. Mass. 2001)   Cited 58 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "corporation is obligated to prepare [Rule 30(b)(6)] designees so that they may give knowledgeable and binding answers for the corporation"
  5. Bank of N.Y. v. Meridien BIAO Bank Tanz. Ltd.

    171 F.R.D. 135 (N.D.N.Y. 1997)   Cited 63 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting that “the presumption appears to be merely a decision rule that facilitates determination when other relevant factors do not favor one side over the other”
  6. Marens v. Carrabba's Italian Grill, Inc.

    196 F.R.D. 35 (D. Md. 2000)   Cited 53 times
    Holding that proposed discovery regarding involuntary terminations of employment in two states and the District of Columbia, without limitation, was overly broad, and modifying the request to seek information relating to the termination of employees within the last 5 years who were supervised by the same supervisors that participated in the improper conduct alleged by the plaintiff
  7. United States v. M T Mortg. Corp.

    235 F.R.D. 11 (D.D.C. 2006)   Cited 29 times
    Finding a Rule 30(b) deponent inadequate where she responded "I don't know" to numerous questions
  8. Securities and Exchange Commission, Plaintiff, v. Dean L. Buntrock, Phillip B. Rooney, James E. Koenig, Thomas C. Hau, Herbert A. Getz, and Bruce D. Tobecksen, Defendants.

    217 F.R.D. 441 (N.D. Ill. 2003)   Cited 26 times
    Granting SEC's motion for a protective order where the defendant sought a Rule 30(b) deposition after the defendant had already received document production and interrogatory responses relating to the noticed subject matters because it would necessarily entail the practical equivalent of deposition of SEC counsel, would unnecessarily intrude upon SEC counsel's work product, and alternative means of obtaining the information was available
  9. Schwarzkopf Technologies Corp. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co.

    142 F.R.D. 420 (D. Del. 1992)   Cited 37 times
    Requiring defendant to identify all prior art underlying its affirmative defenses
  10. Capacchione v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schs.

    182 F.R.D. 486 (W.D.N.C. 1998)   Cited 22 times
    Holding that a party making a supernumeracy objection to interrogatories must either seek a protective order or answer up to the limit and object to the remaining
  11. Rule 6 - Computing and Extending Time; Time for Motion Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 6   Cited 48,543 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "if the last day [of a period] is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday."
  12. Rule 30 - Depositions by Oral Examination

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 30   Cited 16,123 times   127 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