17 Cited authorities

  1. Campania Mgmt. Inc. v. Rooks, Pitts Poust

    290 F.3d 843 (7th Cir. 2002)   Cited 281 times
    Holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to extend discovery filed nine days after the close of discovery
  2. Rossetto v. Pabst Brewing Company

    217 F.3d 539 (7th Cir. 2000)   Cited 184 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding a latent ambiguity where a parallel CBA with the brewery workers' union was amended to explicitly limit health-care benefits to the "term of agreement," while the CBA of the plaintiffs machinists' union was renewed without such a limitation
  3. In re Sulfuric Acid Antitrust Litig.

    231 F.R.D. 331 (N.D. Ill. 2005)   Cited 123 times
    Finding untimely motion to compel can only succeed by showing actual and substantial prejudice.
  4. Reinsdorf v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc.

    296 F.R.D. 604 (C.D. Cal. 2013)   Cited 98 times
    Noting the non-spoliating party must show "that the evidence would have been helpful in proving its claims or defenses - i.e., that the innocent party is prejudiced without the evidence"
  5. Lasercomb America, Inc. v. Reynolds

    911 F.2d 970 (4th Cir. 1990)   Cited 154 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding the copyright holder misused its copyright by including in licensing agreements a provision that neither the licensee company nor its officers, employees, et al., could develop competing goods for the term of the agreement, ninety-nine years
  6. Kidwiler v. Progressive Paloverde Ins. Co.

    192 F.R.D. 193 (N.D.W. Va. 2000)   Cited 115 times
    Holding the magistrate judge appropriately "narrowed and defined" the RFP request for "[a]ll financial incentive agreements which in any way relate to profitability and/or claim performance" to "documents relating to profit-sharing or profits" (alteration in original)
  7. Haviland v. Catholic Health Initiatives-Iowa

    692 F. Supp. 2d 1040 (S.D. Iowa 2010)   Cited 48 times
    Holding that defendant did not have to disclose results of counsel's investigation into whether plaintiffs should be paid for missed lunches in FLSA collective action raising good-faith defense, as the investigation was protected work product and defendant stated they would not be relying on the results as part of its defense
  8. Dauska v. Green Bay Packaging Inc.

    291 F.R.D. 251 (E.D. Wis. 2013)   Cited 22 times
    Granting motion to compel in part and awarding partial expenses to substantially prevailing plaintiff under Rule 37(C), while characterizing defendant's arguments in opposition as "baseless" and plaintiff's requests as "overly broad"
  9. In re Sulfuric Acid Antitrust Litigation

    230 F.R.D. 527 (N.D. Ill. 2005)   Cited 27 times

    Party waived argument that more time was required to depose witness in antitrust action in order to obtain help in deciphering witness's handwritten notes, by failing to raise argument at conclusion of deposition and for four and one-half months afterward, after party had moved for " additional deposition," not additional time to depose; argument was first raised in reply brief. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 30(a)(2)(B), (d)(2), 28 U.S.C.A. Mary Jane Edelstein Fait, Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman &

  10. Hyland v. HomeServices of Am., Inc.

    CASE NO. 3:05-CV-612 (W.D. Ky. May. 14, 2012)   Cited 13 times
    Holding that plaintiffs' motion to compel was untimely and noting that plaintiffs failed to articulate any justification for their failure to do so until six months after the defendants' responses were served and ten days before the close of discovery
  11. Rule 1 - Scope and Purpose

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 1   Cited 15,441 times   49 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"
  12. 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 13,452 times   152 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."