Guy O. Dove, Iii, Spargos Mining Nl v. Atlantic Capital Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “[t]he grant and nature of protection is singularly within the discretion of the district court and may be reversed only on a clear showing of abuse of discretion.” (quotation omitted)
• opining that protective order in Sperry, though not required, was within the district court’s discretion
• noting discretion to deny leave to amend is particularly broad where 18 court has afforded plaintiff one or more opportunities to amend his complaint
• deferring to the lower court’s denial of aprotective order but noting that plaintiffs argument that the discovery was sought mostly to gain an advantage in other litigation “in some circumstances might raise an inference of bad faith sufficient to support a protective order”
• “[T]he grant or denial of a protective order lies within the sound discretion of the district court.”
• district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to enter a protective order prohibiting parties from using discovery in that litigation in another action in the United Kingdom

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).