Brennan Steel Corp. v. Steel Warehouse Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that under federal law, evidence of a defendant’s financial worth is relevant and discoverable to a punitive damages claim
• explaining that courts have “consistently found that evidence of a defendant’s financial worth is relevant, discoverable, and admissible at trial to evaluate plaintiff’s punitive damages claim
• “Courts ordinarily apply the work-product doctrine only after deciding that the attorney-client privilege does not apply.” (citing Upjohn Co., 449 U.S. at 397)
• first citing United States v. Big D Enters., 184 F.3d 924, 932 (8th Cir. 1999); and then citing Mid Continent Cabinetry, Inc. v. George Koch Sons, Inc., 130 F.R.D. 149, 151 (D. Kan. 1990)
• “To satisfy Rule 37(d)’s requirement of a ‘pending motion for a protective order’ for each disputed deposition topic, the party filing a motion for a protective order must state why a motion for a protective order is needed for each disputed deposition topic.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).