Longstreth v. Copple

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that interrogatory or document request is overbroad if it: “(1) uses an omnibus term such as ‘relating to or ‘concerning,’ and (2) applies to a general category or group of documents or a broad range of information”
• “[I]nterrogatories may seek the identities of knowledgeable persons and supporting documents for the ‘principal’ or ‘material’ facts supporting an allegation or defense.”
• “[W]hen the relevancy of the discovery request is not readily apparent on its face, the party seeking the discovery has the burden to show the relevancy of the request.”
• “When the discovery sought appears relevant on its face, the party resisting the discovery has the burden to establish that the requested discovery does not come within the scope of relevance.”
• “When the discovery sought appears relevant on its face, the party resisting the discovery has the burden to establish that the requested discovery does not come within the scope of relevance.”
• “When the discovery sought appears relevant on its face, the party resisting the discovery has the burden to establish that the requested discovery does not come within the scope of relevance.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).