A.P. Bell Fish Company, Inc. v. Gina Raimondo

Oral argument

• Argued

  120 min recording
  Listen

Source: CourtListener oral-argument corpus (CC0).

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• affirming trial court’s stay of discovery pending resolution of summary judgment motion where issues raised were purely legal and discovery would not aid their resolution
• affirming trial court’s stay of discovery pending resolution of summary judgment motion where issues raised were purely legal and discovery would not aid their resolution
• stating that plaintiff's right to discovery before a ruling on a motion for summary judgment “is not unlimited and may be cut off when the record shows that the requested discovery is not likely to produce the facts needed by [the party] to withstand a Rule 56(e
• upholding the district court’s grant of a stay pending the court’s ruling on a motion for summary judgment because movants met their burden of showing why the discovery sought would be unduly expensive and burdensome
• affirming stay of discovery pending ruling on motion for summary judgment, finding that “[t]he trial court sought to resolve an issue that might preclude the need for the discovery altogether thus saving time and expense”
• Once the result was obtained and the follow-up actions taken, the enterprise ceased to exist. There was no RICO association in fact

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).