§Why CasetextPricing

Tri State Advanced Surgery Center LLC et al v. Health Choice LLC et al

RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION for Discovery Motion of Surgery Center Development, Inc., Tri State Advanced Surgery Center, LLC, Dr. Glenn A. Crosby, II., and Dr. Michael Hood for Miscellaneous Discovery Relief

4 Cited authorities

  1. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

    331 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2003)   Cited 3,559 times
    Holding that the Phillips exception is "expressly limited to the status of materials . . . attached to a non-dispositive motion"

  2. Duling v. Gristede's Operating Corp.

    266 F.R.D. 66 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)   Cited 61 times
    Holding that "it is well established that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure create no automatic prohibition against using discovery obtained in one litigation in another litigation"

  3. Wilk v. American Medical Ass'n

    635 F.2d 1295 (7th Cir. 1980)   Cited 136 times
    Holding that the court's prior invocation of the extraordinary circumstances test "was an unfortunate choice of words"

  4. Meade v. City of Dermott

    NO: 5:12CV00315 SWW (E.D. Ark. Nov. 1, 2013)

    NO: 5:12CV00315 SWW 11-01-2013 SYLVIA MEADE Plaintiff v. CITY OF DERMOTT, ARKANSAS, ET AL. Defendants Susan Webber Wright ORDER Before the Court is a motion (ECF No. 35) by Separate Defendant Michael Wolfe ("Wolfe") seeking dismissal or alternative relief related to a discovery-related dispute. Plaintiff Sylvia Meade ("Meade") has filed a response (ECF No. 36), and Wolfe has filed a reply (ECF No. 37). After careful consideration, and for reasons that follow, Wolfe's motion is denied. On August 16