§Why CasetextPricing

Singleton et al v. Beavers et al

RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION for Reconsideration re Order on Motion for Order,,,,,, Order on Motion to Approve/Approval,,, Order on Motion for Relief,,, Order on Motion to Produce,,, Order on Motion for Leave to File,, Motion for Reconsideration as to Require

4 Cited authorities

  1. Dabney v. Montgomery Ward Co., Inc.

    761 F.2d 494 (8th Cir. 1985)   Cited 46 times
    Holding that the decision to permit destructive testing lies solely in the court's discretion

  2. Ostrander v. Cone Mills, Inc.

    119 F.R.D. 417 (D. Minn. 1988)   Cited 31 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting plaintiffs' argument that the proposed destructive testing was not scientifically valid and therefore irrelevant and explaining "[w]hen experts disagree on the relevancy of certain evidence, it would be unjust to select the view of one of those experts with the result that another party's discovery is thereby barred. It is premature during the discovery stage to make was is essentially an evidentiary ruling. Once the testing is completed, plaintiffs will be free to make an appropriate motion in limine or evidentiary motion."

  3. Cameron v. Dist. Ct.

    193 Colo. 286 (Colo. 1977)   Cited 28 times
    Noting that the costs of alteration were lessened by providing for safeguards such as photographing the object in its original state

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

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 26   Cited 94,916 times   653 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37