Bruggeman v. Blagojevich

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that the court could grant a protective order because the party served a deposition notice rather than seeking leave to take more than ten depositions, but then addressed the merits of the requested discovery
• treating motion to compel and motion for protective order as “mirror-image[s]”
• treating motion to compel and motion for protective order as “mirror-image[s]”
• neither text of Rule 30(a)(2)(A)(ii) nor committee’s note exempts Rule 30(b)(6) depositions from leave of court requirement
• same, where defendants did not show good cause for individual-capacity deposition
• “Neither the text of the rule nor the committee’s note exempts Rule 30(b)(6) depositions from the leave requirement in the event of a second deposition of a party already deposed. Rather, the notes state only that a Rule 30(b)(6

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).