Crafton v. U.S. Specialty Insurance

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that Rule 26(g) “requires cooperation rather than contrariety, communication rather than confrontation” during discovery
• noting that the court required the parties to confer to come up with a range of damages to be used “to quantify a workable ‘discovery budget’ that is proportional to what is at issue in the case”
• noting that “Rule 26(b)(2)(C) imposes an obligation on the Court, sua sponte, to[] ‘limit the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed by the rules if it determines that’” certain criteria are met (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C) (cleaned up)
• noting that “Rule 26(b)(2)(C) imposes an obligation on the Court, sua sponte, to[] ‘limit the frequency or text of discovery otherwise allowed by the rules if it determines that’” certain criteria are met (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C) (cleaned up)
• noting that Rule 26(g) “is intended to impose an ‘affirmative duty’ on counsel to behave responsibly during discovery, and to ensure that it is conducted in a way that is consistent ‘with the spirit and purposes’ of the discovery rules, which are contained in Rules 26 through 37”
• “Boilerplate objections that a request for discovery is overbroad and unduly burdensome ... are improper unless based on particularized facts.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).