Kevin F. Marchand v. Mercy Medical Center, an Idaho Corporation, and Neil K. Farris, D.O.

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that “[c]ounsel routinely object to discovery requests” but cautioning that “parties should not seek to evade disclosure by quibbling and objection . . . [and] should admit to the fullest extent possible, and explain why other portions of a request may not be admitted.”
• affirming sanctions where misleading answers to requests for admission “significantly affected the cost of [plaintiffs] prosecution and contravened the goal of full discovery”
• “[T]he true test under Rule 37(c) is not whether a party prevailed at trial but whether [the party] acted reasonably in believing that [it] might prevail.”
• “[T]o aid in the quest for relevant information parties should not seek to evade disclosure by quibbling and objection.”
• “A district court abuses its discretion if it does not apply the correct law or if it rests its decision on a clearly erroneous finding of material fact.”
• “Parties may not view requests for admission as a mere procedural exercise requiring minimally acceptable conduct. They should focus on the goal of the Rules, full and efficient discovery, not evasion and word play.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).