FMC Corp. v. Vendo Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a party may prohibit discovery under Rule 26(b
• applying both the “exceptional circumstances” test under Rule 24 26 and the balancing test of Rule 403
• finding impleader of contribution claims against a joint tortfeasor appropriate when the “‘essential facts of the various claims are so logically connected that considerations of judicial economy and fairness dictate that all the issues be resolved in one lawsuit’”
• \There is SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 5 (0) 1947A a strong policy against permitting a non-diligent party from free-riding off the opponent's industry and diligence.\
• party may prohibit discovery from a consulting expert under Rule 26(b)(4) after the expert's designation as a testifying expert has been withdrawn, even where expert witness report produced

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).