Application of Consorcio Equatoriano De Telecomunicaciones S.A. v. Jet Air Service Equador S.A.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “under Ecuadorian law, [a plaintiff] must submit its evidence with the pleading at the time it commences the civil action”
• finding that the “district court . . . acted entirely within its sound discretion in denying [the] motion for reconsideration” when the “bulk of [the] motion for reconsideration just reiterated [] already-rejected arguments”
• finding that the “district court . . . acted entirely within its sound discretion in denying [the] motion for reconsideration” when the “bulk of [the] motion for reconsideration just reiterated [] already-rejected arguments”
• noting that the Supreme Court established in Intel the \factors to be considered\ and refusing to find abuse of discretion where the party opposing the discovery failed to substantiate its \blanket claim\ that the discovery sought was unduly burdensome under the fourth Intel factor
• criticizing a party that failed to take steps to meet the requester “somewhere in the middle or to narrow the discovery request in any particular way”
• “[A] district court must insist on reliable indications of the likelihood that proceedings will be instituted within a reasonable time.” (quoting Crown Prosecution Serv., 870 F.2d at 692)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).