Lombard's, Inc. v. Prince Manufacturing, Inc. And Chesebrough-Pond's Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an allegation that plaintiff “was genuinely concerned that the documents [at issue] could be destroyed” did not entitle plaintiff to relief under Rule 27
• ruling trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion to depose because petitioner made no showing of need to perpetuate testimony
• “A conclusory allegation of conspiracy to restrain trade will not survive a motion to dismiss.”
• Rule 27 petition denied which alleged only that witnesses were not “immune from matters of life (and death)” and that petitioner was “genuinely concerned” that documents could be destroyed
• statements that witnesses were not “immune from the uncertainties of life (and death)” and unsupported “concern[s]” that they might destroy documents in their possession are insufficient (internal quotation marks omitted)
• trial court did not err in denying Rule 27(b) motion where movant asserted that the two witnesses whose depositions were sought “were not immune from the uncertainties of life (and death)”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).