TV Interactive Data Corp. v. Sony Corp.
No. C 10-475 PJH (MEJ) (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2012) Cited 16 timesFinding discovery requests untimely because the propounding party failed to allow for the three additional days provided by Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d) and serve them 33 days—not 30—before discovery deadline
Gluck v. Ansett Australia Ltd.
204 F.R.D. 217 (D.D.C. 2001) Cited 27 timesHolding under the new version of Rule 26 that the opposing party was not required to produce information with regard to potential witnesses because "the essential inquiry is whether the disclosing party intends to use the witness."
Baldwin v.United States
823 F. Supp. 2d 1087 (D.N. Mar. I. 2011) Cited 13 timesFinding good faith where "counsel acted quickly . . . after realizing her mistake"
Kline v. Berry
287 F.R.D. 75 (D.D.C. 2012) Cited 9 timesNoting that, where plaintiff "intends to argue that the emotional anguish caused her medical issues, and thus damages," plaintiff's "medical condition is at issue and she must allow defendant access to her medical records"
Joseph L. v. Connecticut Dept. of Children and Families
225 F.R.D. 400 (D. Conn. 2005) Cited 16 timesHolding that 163 requests in a case involving the alleged denial of a treatment plan hearing for a young man who was under the state's care were excessive, in part because so few of the requests were relevant
Adobe Systems Incorporated v. Christenson
Case No. 2:10-cv-00422-LRH-GWF (D. Nev. Apr. 5, 2011) Cited 9 timesCase No. 2:10-cv-00422-LRH-GWF. April 5, 2011 ORDER Motion to Compel (#85) GEORGE FOLEY JR., Magistrate Judge This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Compel Adobe's and SIIA's Discovery Responses and Production of Documents; and to Extend the Dispositive Motion Deadline as to Defendants (#85), filed on February 24, 2011; Plaintiff's and Third Party Defendant's Joint Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Compel Discovery Responses and to Extend the Dispositive Motion Deadline (#97)
Kelly v. McGraw-Hill Cos.
279 F.R.D. 470 (N.D. Ill. 2012) Cited 6 timesAdam J. Glazer, G. Terence Nader, Richard Marc Goldwasser, Schoenberg, Finkel, Newman & Rosenberg, LLC, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff. Justin Kalani Beyer, Alan L. Unikel, John H. Anderson, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Chicago, IL, for Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This opinion memorializes (and expands a bit on) this Court February 2, 2012 in-court oral ruling. As the text will reflect, the caselaw that inflexibly characterizes Fed.R.Civ.P. (" Rule" ) 36 requests to admit as a " discovery" measure
Green v. Midland
CIVIL ACTION No. 10-4481 (E.D. La. Jan. 11, 2012) Cited 5 timesAffirming the magistrate judge's order denying the plaintiffs' motion to extend the discovery deadline and finding that the magistrate judge did not clearly err considering, inter alia, Wilson's "admitted lack of diligence." Wilson conceded that his failure to include two witnesses in the plaintiffs' initial subpoena request was caused by "a lack of thoroughness."
Nesselrotte v. Allegheny Energy, Inc.
Civil Action No. 06-01390 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 30, 2008) Cited 6 timesFinding discovery requests propounded less than 30 days before the close of discovery to be untimely pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b) and 34(b)
Wong v. Milnes (In re Milnes)
Bankruptcy Case No. 10-33136DM (Bankr. N.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2012)Bankruptcy Case No. 10-33136DM Adversary Proceeding No. 10-3193DM 11-02-2012 In re JAMES WILKES MILNES, Debtor. MEGAN WONG, WARREN WONG, DIANNA WONG, HANS KUFFER, ELSBETH KUFFER, PHILLIP DIEP, JENNY TRAC, JOSEPH CANATSEY, MICHELLE CANATSEY, JUNE FUJI, DENNIS POOR, DENISE POOR, MARK MISTAL and KITTYHAWK PRODUCTS, INC., a Nevada Corporation, Plaintiffs, v. JAMES MILNES, individually and dba JB LAND DEVELOPMENT, and dba AMERICAN PRIME FUNDING, Defendant. DENNIS MONTALI _______________ U.S. Bankruptcy
Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers
Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 Cited 23,660 times 16 Legal AnalysesProviding for service via CM/ECF Systems