15 Cited authorities

Shoen v. Shoen
5 F.3d 1289 (9th Cir. 1993) Cited 218 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that materials should be afforded protection even if the information contained therein is not confidential
Epstein v. MCA, Inc.
54 F.3d 1422 (9th Cir. 1995) Cited 55 times
Holding that district court abused its discretion in allowing discovery of documents that "would have no bearing on either the merits of the case or on the motion for class certification" and that therefore were irrelevant under Rule 26(b)
Brincko v. Rio Props. Inc.
278 F.R.D. 576 (D. Nev. 2011) Cited 15 times
In Brincko, the defendant moved to compel plaintiff's expert "to appear and answer questions at a second session of his deposition that he was instructed not to answer at his July 31, 2011, deposition."
U.S. v. Ward
989 F.2d 1015 (9th Cir. 1992) Cited 38 times
Concluding that defendant "ha[d] no standing to assert the . . . Fifth Amendment rights of others"
All Star Seed v. Nationwide Agribusiness Ins. Co.
Case No. 12CV146-L (BLM) (S.D. Cal. May. 3, 2013) Cited 9 times
Permitting redeposition where the information sought was relevant to the plaintiff's theory of the case
Dixon v. the CertainTeed Corp.
164 F.R.D. 685 (D. Kan. 1996) Cited 22 times
Finding that production of document containing statement by witness following a first deposition warranted a second deposition
Couch v. Wan
CV F 08-1621 LJO DLB (E.D. Cal. Sep. 24, 2012) Cited 4 times
RYAN COUCH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TOMMY WAN, et al., Defendants. No. CV F 08-1621 LJO DLB. United States District Court, E.D. California. September 24, 2012. ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION OF DENIAL OF RENEWED DEPOSITIONS (Doc. 233.) LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, District Judge. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff correction officers Ryan Couch ("Officer Couch") and Kenneth Jimenez ("Officer Jimenez") seek reconsideration of U.S. Magistrate Judge Beck's ("Judge Beck's") orders to deny redeposing a percipient witness and to
Hernandez v. Best Buy Co.
13cv2587-JM(KSC) (S.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2014) Cited 2 times
Compelling a response
Syncora Guarantee Inc. v. EMC Mortg. Corp.
No. MC 13-80037 SI (N.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2013) Cited 2 times
No. MC 13-80037 SI 03-25-2013 SYNCORA GUARANTEE INC., formerly known as XL CAPITAL ASSURANCE, INC., Plaintiff, v. EMC MORTGAGE CORP., Defendant. SUSAN ILLSTON ORDER COMPELLING PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND DEPOSITION TESTIMONY As part of discovery in an action in the Southern District of New York, plaintiff Syncora Guarantee Inc. moves this Court to compel production of documents held by third party GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc., and to redepose non-party Leslie Gibin. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule
JS Products Inc. v. Kabo Tool Co.
Case No. 2:11-cv-01856-RCJ-GWF (D. Nev. Jun. 26, 2014) Cited 1 times
Case No. 2:11-cv-01856-RCJ-GWF 06-26-2014 JS PRODUCTS, INC., Plaintiff, v. KABO TOOL COMPANY, Defendant. GEORGE FOLEY ORDER Motion to Compel (#301) This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Compel Production of Measurements Taken by JS Products, Inc.'s Expert Gene Olson (#301), filed on May 19, 2014. Plaintiff filed its Opposition to the Motion to Compel (#324) on June 5, 2014. Defendants filed their Reply (#351) on June 16, 2014. The Court conducted a hearing in this matter on June
Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 Cited 100,772 times 689 Legal Analyses
Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37
Rule 37 - Failure to Make Disclosures or to Cooperate in Discovery; Sanctions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 Cited 48,292 times 336 Legal Analyses
Holding that a party may be barred from using a witness if it fails to disclose the witness
Rule 30 - Depositions by Oral Examination
Fed. R. Civ. P. 30 Cited 16,970 times 135 Legal Analyses
Upholding a district court's decision not to consider the plaintiff's deposition errata sheets in opposition to a motion for summary judgment when they were untimely

Welch et al v. Narconon Fresh Start

15 Cited authorities

Holding that materials should be afforded protection even if the information contained therein is not confidential

Holding that district court abused its discretion in allowing discovery of documents that "would have no bearing on either the merits of the case or on the motion for class certification" and that therefore were irrelevant under Rule 26(b)

In Brincko, the defendant moved to compel plaintiff's expert "to appear and answer questions at a second session of his deposition that he was instructed not to answer at his July 31, 2011, deposition."

Concluding that defendant "ha[d] no standing to assert the . . . Fifth Amendment rights of others"

Permitting redeposition where the information sought was relevant to the plaintiff's theory of the case

Finding that production of document containing statement by witness following a first deposition warranted a second deposition

Compelling a response

Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

Holding that a party may be barred from using a witness if it fails to disclose the witness

Upholding a district court's decision not to consider the plaintiff's deposition errata sheets in opposition to a motion for summary judgment when they were untimely