Harris v. McDonnell

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that “time spent preparing for a deposition is, literally speaking, time spent in responding to discovery” and further observing that the Rule drafters did not limit recovery to only time spent during depositions
• rejecting a 3:1 ratio, but approving a 1.5:1 ratio in view of, inter alia, the “unusually extensive” amount of material that the experts reviewed in preparation for deposition
• using a 1.5 to 1 ratio in a gender discrimination case
• finding three- to-one ratio of preparation time to deposition time unreasonable

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).