Exxon Research & Engineering Co. v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that contention interrogatories were more appropriate than a 30(b)(6) deposition for discovery in a patent case
• holding that contention interrogatories were more appropriate than a 30(b)(6) deposition for discovery in a patent case
• “Whether a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition or a Rule 33(c) contention interrogatory is more appropriate will be a case by case factual determination.”
• “ ‘The Court understands that preparing for a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition can be burdensome. However, this is merely the result of ... the privilege of being able to use the corporate form to conduct business.’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Other cases named Exxon Research & Engineering Co. v. United States

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

• Exxon Research & Engineering Co. v. United States
  Federal Claims· 2000-03-09· cited 5×