Haby v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• “A requested party may not refuse to respond to a requesting party’s discovery request on 17 the ground that the requested information is in the possession of the requesting party.”
• “A requested party may not refuse to respond to a requesting party’s discovery 25 request on the ground that the requested information is in the possession of the requesting 26 party.”
• “A 20 requested party may not refuse to respond to a requesting party’s discovery request on the ground 21 that the requested information is in the possession of the requesting party.”
• by claiming that prison officials unconstitutionally refused to deliver attorney-client correspondence, and that this injured plaintiff by impairing his prosecution of prior claim, plaintiff put content of privileged correspondence at issue
• “[Whhile pro se litigants are entitled to some leeway in complying with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that tolerance “does not extend to unexcused failures to comply with routine discovery requests.”
• “A requested party may not refuse 7 || to respond to a requesting party’s discovery request on the ground that the requested information 8 || is in the possession of the requesting party.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).