Hickman v. Whirlpool Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that interrogatories are “overly broad to the extent [they] ask[] for ‘every fact’ that supports an identified allegation or claim”
• finding, although interrogatories appeared to seek information provided in initial disclosures, the information in the disclosures did not indicate specific information to answer the questions asked in the interrogatories
• “Plaintiffs may not answer the interrogatory by generally referring Defendant to the pleadings filed in this case, documents produced, opt-in questionnaires, depositions, or declarations.”
• “Plaintiffs may not answer the interrogatory by generally referring Defendant to the pleadings filed in this case …. Absent compliance with Rule 33(d

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).