Dowling v. Cleveland Clinic Foundation

How courts have described this case

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

• holding the most important inquiry when evaluating whether to allow further discovery under the good cause standard is whether the party was diligent in pursuing discovery
• explaining that when the adverse party “complie[s]” with “discovery requests,” allowing any “additional time for discovery” would not “have a substantial effect on the outcome of the case”
• finding that, even though the defendant “was not responsive as to informal discovery,” it was sufficient under this prong that the defendant “complied with prior formal discovery requests”
• explaining that, when the Sixth Circuit reviews a district court’s denial of additional time for discovery, “[t]he overarching inquiry . . . is whether the moving party was diligent in pursuing discovery”
• listing factors—including when the party learned of the issue that is the subject of discovery, the length of the discovery period, and any dilatory conduct by the moving party—to guide consideration of requests to amend the court’s scheduling order (citation omitted)
• listing factors—including when the party learned of the issue that is the subject of discovery, the length of the discovery period, and any dilatory conduct by the moving party—to guide consideration of requests to amend the court’s scheduling order (citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).