![]() ![]() The party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in Obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive (ii) If it determines that: “(i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be 6 A court must additionally limit the frequency or extent of discovery 1982).ĭiscovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery 2011) (“Generally, the scope ofĭiscovery is broad and permits the discovery of ‘any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim orĭefense.’”), citing Fed. Opposition memoranda would be due April 18, 2023. The Motion was filed on March 28, 2023, such that any 65-66 (the parties’ Joint Motion to Stay the case pending appeal and the Orderĭefendants have not yet filed opposition memoranda. 60-62 (Ruling granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ Motion to DismissĪnd Notice of Appeal) and R. Parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the Nonprivileged matter that is relevant to a claim or defense 5 and proportional to the needs of theĬase, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, parties may obtain discovery regarding any Sought, further briefing is not necessary 4 and the Motion will be denied without prejudice to reurging a Motion that addresses the deficiencies explained below. 3 Because on its face the Motion lacks good cause for the relief 37 discovery conference, but Defendants object to engaging in discovery because the case isĪdministratively closed and stayed while Defendants’ appeal is pending before the U.S. 2 Plaintiff contends that the parties engaged in a Fed. ![]() ![]() Produce their initial disclosures and to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests, which were Before the Court is the Motion to Compel Initial Disclosures and Responses to Writtenĭiscovery (“Motion”), 1 filed by Plaintiff Andrew Babinski.Ĭompelling Defendants Kristin Sosnowsky, Shannon Walsh, John Fletcher, and Alan Sikes to ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |