Hallal v. Hopkins

How courts have described this case

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

• rejecting argument that Rule 26(d) merely tolls the time to respond to requests for admission until after the Rule 26(f) discovery conference
• “Nothing in the language of [Rule 26(d)] permits a party to continue to seek discovery which may have been properly served under state law rules pre-removal.”
• “Nothing in the language of [Rule 26(d)] permits a party to continue to seek discovery which may have been properly served under state law rules pre-removal.”
• “Nothing in the language of [Rule 26(d)] permits a party to continue to seek discovery which may have been properly served under state law rules pre-removal.”
• recognizing the statutorily created pharmacist-patient privilege
• “Rule 26(d)’s proscription sweeps broadly: not only may a party not ‘serve’ discovery, it may not even ‘seek’ discovery from any source until after the Rule 26(f) conference.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).