§Why CasetextPricing

St. Louis Motorsports, LLC et al v. Ferrari North America, Inc.

REPLY to Response to Motion re MOTION to Compel Production of Documents

6 Cited authorities

  1. Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders

    437 U.S. 340 (1978)   Cited 4,385 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that that the production of putative class members' names pursuant to Federal Rule 26 was not "within the scope of legitimate discovery."

  2. Cincinnati Insurance Company v. Fine Home Managers

    No. 4:09CV234-DJS (E.D. Mo. Jul. 27, 2010)   Cited 52 times
    Finding that "the articulation of mere conclusory objections that something is 'overly broad, burdensome, or oppressive,' is insufficient to carry the resisting party's burden—that party must make a specific showing of reasons why the particular discovery should not be had."

  3. American Builders & Contractors Supply Co. v. Roofers Mart, Inc.

    No. 1:11-CV-19 (CEJ) (E.D. Mo. Nov. 1, 2011)   Cited 1 times

    No. 1:11-CV-19 (CEJ). November 1, 2011 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CAROL JACKSON, District Judge This matter is before the Court on the defendants' motion to compel plaintiff to produce documents and the plaintiff's motion to compel production of documents. The parties have filed responses, and the issues are fully briefed. Plaintiff brings this action asserting claims of misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of fiduciary duty, unfair competition, breach of contract, civil conspiracy, and tortious interference

  4. Pinnix v. Centaur Building Supply Services, Inc.

    Case No. 4:08-CV-988 (CEJ) (E.D. Mo. Nov. 4, 2008)   Cited 2 times

    Case No. 4:08-CV-988 (CEJ). November 4, 2008 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CAROL JACKSON, District Judge This matter is before the Court on defendant's motion to compel plaintiff's responses to its first set of interrogatories. Plaintiff has filed a response in opposition to the motion. Plaintiff has also provided a copy of his supplemental responses to defendant's interrogatories, which he served on defendant after the motion was filed. The Court has considered both the original and supplemental responses

  5. 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

  6. Rule 37 - Failure to Make Disclosures or to Cooperate in Discovery; Sanctions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 37   Cited 45,850 times   319 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a party may be barred from using a witness if it fails to disclose the witness