Ecker v. Atlantic Refining Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• denying a motion to compel as untimely where plaintiff filed the motion only a few days “prior to the extended discovery deadline” because the motion could not “be fully briefed” or decided “before the discovery period closed”
• denying motion to compel because, “[i]n the context of computer systems and computer records, inspection or seizure is not permitted unless the moving party can demonstrate that the documents they seek to compel do, in fact, exist and are being unlawfully withheld”
• denying motion to compel as untimely where plaintiff filed motion “only eight days prior to the extended discovery deadline that [the district judge] had just estab- lished” because motion could not be fully briefed or decided prior to close of discovery

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).